










Class 



Book_ ■H'S. G 


(bipghtN 1 ' 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



























' 





' 













I 












































I 
















* 




. 
























4 . 









































































» 






























































EDGAR 


OR 

From Atheism to the Full Truth. 

B Y 


Reverend Louis von Hammerstein, S. J. 


Translated from the German 
at the Georgetown Visitation Convent. 



PREFACE, ,, 

' 1 ' ' ’ ’ ' by * J 111 ’ 1 ’ 


Reverend John A. Conway, S. J. 


St. Louis, Mo. 1903. 
Published by B. HERDER. 
17 South Broadway. 


, ^. 
3 >p ^ 


CONGRESS, 

Two Comj. 4 « 8twtive»| 

cw-rn 


C^BVwfnt^ riMTWv I 
Q-tst \(\-lt^ 0 % I 
CLASS ^XXc. NoJ 

1 0 1 M 

l COPY i?,. 1 


NIHIL OBSTAT. 

S. Ludovici, die 20. Julii 1903. 

F. G. Hoeweck, 

Censor Theologicus. 


IMPRIMATUR. 


S. Ludovici, die 20. Julii 1903. 

►{* Joannes J. Geennon, 

Archiepiscopi Coadjutor, 

Adm. Dioceseos. 





Copyright, 1903, by Joseph Gummersbach. 


—BECKTOLD— 

PRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO. 
ST. LOUIS, MO. 







' fitted, 





TO THE ALUMNAE ASSOCIATION 
OF THE 

GEORGETOWN VISITATION ACADEMY 
THIS ENGLISH EDITION 
IS AFFECTIONA TEL Y DEDICA TED. 


S. M. S. N. 




PREFACE. 


It is commonly said, and probably not without 
truth, that religious controversy, whether spoken or 
written, does little in favor of truth. “Convince a 
man against his will, he’ll be of the same opinion 
still,” I suppose has its application here. Violent 
controversy is frequently abusive, and so excites the 
passions, and reason is clouded and obscured. For 
the exposition of Catholic truth, no violence as 
needed, simply becau.se it is the truth. It is a long 
series of logically connected doctrines which any 
reasonable man can follow, link by link, to that 
eventful day in Caesarea Philippi when Christ said to 
the fisherman : “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock 
I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it. ’ ’ Although men may not be 
willing to hear controversy, or at least to profit by it, 
they are, for the most part, ready for the truth when 
it is proposed to them quietly and dispassionately, 
and in a spirit of apostolic charity. A striking illustra¬ 
tion of 'this we have in the marvellous success of 
Cardinal Gibbon’s book, “The Faith of Our Fathers.” 
In it there is no bitterness, not a single offensive 
word, no abuse of other religious opinions: it is a 
clear, concise, simple exposition of Catholic teaching, 
warm with the fervor of Christian charity and 
apostolic zeal. How efficacious it is and how con¬ 
vincing, the publishers can tell us, and the great 
number of readers, too, will bear witness to whom it 
(hi) 


iv 


PREFACE. 


has been a veritable light in darkness, and a guide to 
them who walked in the shadow of death. We have 
no patience with them who, in their ignorance, talk 
of the primitive simplicity of the Gospel in contrast 
with the great and complicated truths that are now 
part of the deposit of revealed truth. In one sense it 
is true that the principles laid down in the Gospel are 
few and apparently simple: as it is true, likewise, that 
the dogmatic utterances of the Church are few, much 
fewer than most people imagine; but every great 
principle is necessarily complicated in its applications 
and consequences. Few, indeed, are the words, and 
simple, by which the Sacraments,—Baptism, Penance, 
the Eucharist, etc. were instituted, but they open up 
questions and speculations and discussions which 
will occupy the thoughts of men throughout all time. 

Views change with the passing centuries, and the 
great infallible principles must be able to meet each 
changing phase of thought and every new discovery. 
Science is marching on apace, seemingly subverting 
all past knowledge; but it cannot contradict one single 
principle laid down in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and 
thus every new discovery demands a new application 
of those principles. Every change of human thought, 
every new theory that affects the moral welfare of 
mankind, whether it be as an individual, or in 
domestic and social relations, must be met and solved 
by those few and apparently simple principles that are 
to guide men on until the end. Salvation may be 
simple, as simple as the peccavi of David, or the tears 
of the Magdalen, but truth must necessarily grow from 
more to more, even as the great forest grows from the 
little seed that fell upon favorable soil. Development 


PREFACE. 


V 


is not change; it is growth, and growth is complicated. 
There is necessarily a development in Catholic doc¬ 
trine. One great truth implies many truths; one 
principle of conduct connects many other principles, 
interwoven together as a great network of moral right¬ 
doing. Men must have explanations; the human 
mind will not rest without reasons and deductions; 
and so the simple truths of the Gospel — the great, all 
embracing principles that were to guide thought and 
conduct — have developed into the vast folios of 
apologies, dogmatic teaching, scriptural interpreta¬ 
tion, liturgy, Church history, etc. which fill our 
libraries and form the life study of our teachers and 
doctors. Thus it was that the apologists arose in the 
early days of Christianity, and the scholastics in the 
middle ages; and the same work is going on still, and 
will continue so long as men seek for the truth, and 
there are teachers able to instruct and enlighten. 
And surely such teachers are with us still, our con¬ 
temporaries, whose voices we have heard, whose 
defense of Catholic truth has been to us as our glory 
and our pride. There was the great Newman, with 
his clear insight and his wondrous power of analysis, 
which made him an echo of the most eloquent primitive 
apologists; Wiseman, with his vast erudition; Man¬ 
ning, with his fearlessness and courtliness. Nor has 
our own country been wanting in valiant defenders. 
There is England of Charleston, with his Celtic 
eloquence and his Roman training; the brave Hughes, 
who reflected imperishable glory on a great diocese; 
Brownson, the layman, with his vast philosophic 
grasp; Martin J. Spalding, with his culture and deep 
Catholic learning; should I not add his successor in 


VI 


PREFACE. 


the See of Baltimore who has appealed with such 
wonderful success to every state of Christian life; to 
our forefathers in that admirable work to which I 
have already alluded; to all Christians, in his 
“Christian Heritage”; and to the highest officials of 
Christianity in his “Ambassador of Christ”? Many 
other names could naturally be mentioned, but these^ 
rise spontaneously before the mind when one thinks 
of the champions of Catholic teaching. 

But it is not only in England and America that 
gallant service has been done in the cause of Catholic 
truth. Germany, too, has had her glorious galaxy of 
Catholic apologists, staunch and intrepid in their 
defense of the doctrines of the Church. Germany is 
the land of fearless Catholicity, where Catholics have 
made themselves feared and respected. Elsewhere, 
unfortunately, we may at times see Catholics bending 
before the storm, timid and speechless, expecting no 
doubt a Providence that demands their co-operation; 
but there is a vigor in German Catholicity, both 
political and doctrinal, that should excite our admira¬ 
tion and be for us a splendid example for imitation. 
Who can reflect upon the work of the Centre Party, 
from Mallinckrodt and Windthorst to the late lamented 
Eieber, without a feeling of pride and satisfaction? 
Who can read the works that teem from the German 
Catholic press without feeling that the defense of 
Catholic truth is in brave and fearless hands? It is 
in Germany that the fiercest onslaughts are made 
upon revealed truth by rationalists, materialists, pan¬ 
theists, Kantians, Hegelians, evolutionists, etc., but it 
is from Germany, too, that we get our best defense and 
our ablest expositions of Catholic doctrines. Amongst 


PREFACE. 


Vll 


German Catholic writers, Father L,ouis von Hammer- 
stein has been conspicuous for years. Himself a con¬ 
vert to the Catholic faith, he has been strenuous in its 
defense, both in the books he has published and in the 
numerous articles he has written for various Catholic 
magazines and newspapers. His “Edgar” is a clear, 
lucid exposition of Catholic teaching, at the same 
time, scientific and popular. He takes up all the 
objections of the materialists and rationalists and 
answers them with a logical force that brings convic¬ 
tion to the mind. It would be a mistake to imagine 
that “Edgar” is only a refutation of errors; its aim is 
to be as useful to the believer as to the unbeliever. It 
gives the reason, as far as it can be given, the motiva 
credibilitatis, as theologians term them, for the faith 
that we profess. It is thrown into the form of a 
dialogue which gives a living interest to the work, 
and it proceeds logically from the great foundation of 
all faith — the existence of God, as demanded by 
right reason itself. No objection that can be made 
appears to escape Edgar, and every difficulty is 
answered with patient kindness and honest frankness. 
There is no special pleading; reason is met fairly and 
squarely by reason, fact by fact, and theory by 
theory. The life of the Saviour is related, and His 
divine mission; and finally the claims of the Church 
which He founded to perpetuate that mission, and the 
treasury of grace entrusted to it, are explained with 
convincing force. It is sufficient to read the com¬ 
ments of the German press, favorable and unfavorable, 
to realize that the appearance of “Edgar” created a 
sensation in the religious world. That it did a won¬ 
derful amount of good, we are ready to believe; it was 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


not merely a weapon of defense, but an instrument 
with which the Catholic could bravely walk into the 
enemy’s camp on the offensive. The style is most 
interesting, and this interest has been preserved in the 
translation, which is a faithful reproduction of the 
original and yet, at the same time, it has all the ease 
and grace of an original work. God grant that this 
translation may do as much good amongst the English 
speaking readers as did the first editions amongst the 
Germans. 


CONTENTS. 


I. 

God or Atheism. 

1. Knowledge and Belief. 

The happiness, certainty, and reasonableness 
of faith — All belief founded on testimony 

pages 1—5 

2 . God the Creator of the World. 

The cosmological proof — Man is not eternal 
nor has he evolved from a lower animal — 

The ape-theory — Evolution — Haeckel’s 
methods — Virchow’s testimony — An un¬ 
known cause—The design argument (Eesch) 

pages 6—24 

3 . Objections. 

Discords in nature — Infinite series of created 
beings — Is not God cruel ? — The existence 
of hell logical—Is not God changeable? — 
Aristotle’s argument: motion presupposes a 
moving principle — God is an infinitely per¬ 
fect Being— Paganism a self-contradiction — 

The onty possible solution . . . pages 38—48 

4 . God the Fundamental Source of all Justice and 
all Duty. 

Why is unbelief so prevalent at present in 
scientific circles? — Why is the doctrine of 
hell impugned? — The principal cause of . 
atheism — The moral law without a God — 

(ix) 


X 


CONTENTS. 


No ethics without a belief in the existence of 
God — Schopenhauer’s conclusions, pages 38—49 

5. God the Source of the Highest Happiness. 

The unhappiness attending atheism even in 
this life — Happiness found in Christian 
faith.pages 49—55 

6 . Miracles. 

The possibility of miracles — What purpose 
do miracles serve ?—Miracles confirm Christ’s 
divine mission — The raising of Lazarus from 
the dead — Miracles presuppose a personal 
God — A “natural’ ’ explanation — Healing 
of the man born blind .... pages 55—71 

II. 

7 Jesus Christ. 

1. The Drama of the World's History. 

The Creation and the Fall the first Act—The 
promises of a Redeemer — The Birth, Life 
and Passion of Jesus Chrisfthe principal Act 
— The spreading of the kingdom of Jesus 
Christ until the end of time — General judg¬ 
ment the closing Act .... pages 72—109 

2. The Books of the New Testament. 

Proof of their genuineness and authenticity— 

The present existing manuscripts — The an¬ 
cient translations and harmonies of the Gos¬ 
pels — Spurious Gospels — The Gospels and 
the ancient heresiarchs — Irenaeus — Poly¬ 
carp — Justin Martyr — Acts of the Scyllitan 
martyrs — Clement — Barnabas — Celsus —- 
Flavius Josephus — Augustine — The Gos- 



CONTENTS. 


xi 


pels from an historical standpoint — Intrinsic 
evidence—Apparent contradictions—Tischen- 
dorf.pages 109—132 

3. Prophecies and their Fulfilment. 

The Protoevangel — Patriarchal period — 
Noah and Sem — Abraham — His prefigur- 
ative sacrifice — Isaac — Jacob — David — 
Isaias — Flavius Josephus — Tacitus, Sueto¬ 
nius, Virgil — Jeremias, Ezechiel — Daniel 
— Aggeus, Malachias—Christ’s own pro¬ 
phecies .pages 133—15: 

4. Objections. 

Judaism — Mohammedanism — The Trinity 
— The Incarnation — The Sacred Scriptures, 
especially the Mosaic record — Harmony of 
Scripture and the natural sciences — Scrip¬ 
ture and geology — Moses divinely enlight¬ 
ened . pages 152—171 


III. 

The Catholic Church and Its Doctrines. 

1. The Rings of Nathan the Wise. 

One of the great Christian Confessions must 
possess genuine Christianity — Which is it ? 

pages 171—176 

2. Subversion or Development? 

That doctrine is false which contradicts doc¬ 
trine once universally held as Christian 
dogma — From this may be drawn a correct 
estimate of the Protestant position as also 
that of the Russian and Greek Churches — 
Hormisdas’ Confession of Faith — Councils of 
Lateran, Lyons, etc. —Is not the infallibility 





CONTENTS. 


xii 

of the Pope an innovation — A distinction 
between subversion and development — 
Illustrations of doctrinal development — 
Definition of dogma — St. Clement of Alex¬ 
andria and St. Augustine on the subject 

pages 176—191 

3. The Principle of Authority or Private Inter¬ 
pretation? 

Is not the submission of our judgment to 
human authority in such matters undignified 
and unreasonable?—“He that heareth you 
heareth me” — Principle of authority and 
the Scriptures — The Acts of the Apostles — 

The disputed “kai”—Why not discredit 
Catholic claims ? ...... pages 191—205 

4. The Bible, Tradition, and the Teaching Office 
of the Church. 

What estimate does the Catholic Church 
place upon the Bible ? — The source of faith 
— The Bible honored by the Church and 
assiduously studied — The Bible before the 
time of Luther — The Sacred Scriptures safe¬ 
guarded — Cardinal Wiseman quoted — 

The Catholic Church holds tradition likewise 
to be a source of faith — Without tradition, 
no Bible — The Teaching Office of the 
Church, the rule of faith — Lessing quoted 
on the rule of faith .... pages 191—220 

5. Councils and Creeds . 

The Apostles’ Creed — The Nicene Creed — 
Later Councils — Confession of Faith of the 
Council of Trent — What binding force have 
the Creeds?—What is ecclesiastical teaching 
authority?.pages 220—231 




CONTENTS. 


Xlll 


6. The Vicegerent of Christ. 

Catholicism stands or falls with the doctrine 
of the infallibility of the Pope—But where is 
there mention of the Papacy or of the infal¬ 
libility of the Pope in the primitive Church ? 

— The doctrine of infallibility in harmony 
with reason — The meaning of papal infal¬ 
libility — Its range — How God can guard 
the Pope from error (Suarez, Bellarmine) — 

The antiquity of the doctrine — Hormisdas, 
Galasius I., L,eo the Great, Innocent I. — 
Julius I. — Councils: Chalcedon, Ephesus, 
Constantinople, Nice — Testimony of Theo¬ 
dore of Studium, Maximus of Constantinople, 
Fulgentius, Peter Chrysologus, Valentinian 
III, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Jerome, 
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzen, 
Optatus of Mileve, Ammianus Marcellinus, 
Emperor Aurelian, Cyprian, Origen, Tertul- 
lian, Irenaeus. — Was Saint Peter ever in 
Rome? — Clement of Rome i. Peter V. 13. 

— Further Testimony for the Antiquity of 
Primacy drawn from Ignatius, Clement of 
Rome — Testimony of the Scriptures — Peter 
always ranked as first— Matt. 1. 16 (Hase), 
John XXI, 15. 17; Daniel II, 44; Isaias 11. 

2. 3.P a ^ es 232—258 

7. The Doctrine of Justification. 

The doctrine according to the Council of 
Trent — Inferences .... pages 259 — 267 

8 . Grace and good Works. 

The Similitude of the Vine — The final Judg¬ 
ment .pages 268—270 




XIV 


CONTENTS. 


9. Explanation of the Tridentine Confession. 

The authority of the Fathers of the Church 
— The number of the Sacraments — Original 
sin, the Immaculate Conception and sanctify¬ 
ing grace — Outside the Church no redemp¬ 
tion— The real presence in the most holy 
Sacrament of the Altar — Communion under 
one form — The use of the Latin language in 
the Mass and in the Liturgy in general — 
Celibacy — Purgatory — The veneration of 
saints, especially of the Mother of God — The 
veneration of relics and images — Indulgen¬ 
ces— Obedience to the Pope . pages 271—312 

10. Catholic and Protestant Conditions. 

Catholic and Protestant epochs contrasted — 
Catholic and Protestant countries of the 
present day — Who stirs up revolutions ? — 

The labor question — Freemasonry — Its in¬ 
activity in Protestant countries — Nationality 
and the historic past — The temperamental 
element — Suicide among Catholics and 
among Protestants, a contrast — The spirit 
of self-sacrifice — Morality in a stricter sense 

pages 313—327 

11. Apostasy and Conversion. 

The “Reformation” in England — How Ger¬ 
many received the new doctrines — The 
Catholic Church calumniated in Protestant 
schools — Conversions in recent times — The 
outlook.pages 328—342 

12. Practical Suggestions. 

Advise to those who are about to enter the 
Church — Preliminary steps — What is neces- 



CONTENTS. 


XV 


sary to confess— How to make one’s confes¬ 
sion — Subsequent line of conduct pages 343—349 
13. Conclusion ...... . . pages 350—353 

Remarks.pages 354—355 

A graphic representation of the leading Confes¬ 
sions. 





. < 

1 . - ■ ~ § 




















■ 






























I. 


GOD, OK ATHEISM? 


I. Knowledge and Belief. 

Edgar, a young jurist who had recently completed 
his law course in Berlin, was taken dangerously ill, 
while on a pleasure trip in the south of England. He 
was conveyed to a hospital of the Sisters of Charity, and 
placed by the superior’s orders under the charge of a 
Sister exiled from Germany during the “Kultur- 
kampf. ’ ’ The sudden change from the social pleasures 
of the past weeks to the solitude surrounding him 
now, tended to make him introspective. “What will 
become of me?” he mused. “Am I going to recover, 
— or am I going to die? And if I die, what then?” 

He had been brooding over these questions some 
time when the Sister in charge, entering the room, 
interrupted his gloomy reverie with a few kind and 
encouraging words. Seeing her so contented and 
happy, he asked involuntarily: “Sister, do you not 
see a great many die? How can you possibly remain 
so calm and cheerful? Are you not constantly remind¬ 
ed of death?” 

“Yes,” replied the Sister, “but death is not a mis¬ 
fortune. Why should we not be happy at the thought 
of heaven ?” 


(0 



2 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


Edgar. But are you certain there is a heaven? 

Sister. Why, of course ! 

Edgar. And are you sure that when you die you 
will go to heaven ? 

Sister. Certainly, if I keep God’s commandments. 

E. You must be very happy in this assurance! 
But how do you know what God has commanded ? 

S. From the catechism. 

E. Are you sure, though, that the catechism does 
not deceive you ? 

S. Certainly I am ; because the catechism contains 
the doctrine of the Catholic Church. 

E. Ah, indeed! But suppose the Catholic Church 
errs? 

S. That is impossible, for Christ has promised to 
guide her in all truth. 

E. To guide her in all truth ? In what way, may 
I ask? 

S. Do you not believe that Christ is God ? And if 
He is God, is He not able to provide for the Church, 
that she may not offer us error instead of truth, a 
stone instead of bread ? But I will not argue with you. 
There is a German priest here who is our chaplain. 
If you wish I will tell him to call on you, and you can 
discuss these points with him. 

Edgar gladly consented. He was pleased to find 
in England a fellow-countryman with whom he could 
converse ; for he saw clearly that the sister was fully 
occupied in caring for the patients committed to her 
charge. True, any genuine “Berliner” would have 
been more to Edgar’s taste than a Catholic “Father”; 
nevertheless, he rather liked the idea of meeting an 
individual of that sort. Being a Protestant, he had 


BBtlEF, IN ITS ORDINARY ACCEPTATION. j 

never seen a member of a religious order, much less 
spoken to one. 

Meanwhile the day passed and evening came 
before the priest found time for the promised visit. 
At last he entered Edgar’s room and they were soon 
engaged in a cordial conversation, as frequently hap¬ 
pens when two of the same nationality meet abroad. 
The Father evinced great pleasure in hearing him 
speak of Germany and interested himself in the 
personal condition of the patient, who in turn was 
pleased to find a sympathetic friend, even though, as 
he considered, nothing but a Catholic priest and relig¬ 
ious. The conversation did not as yet turn upon the 
subject previously touched upon by the Sister; but the 
bonds of friendship were knit, and every evening saw 
the Father and Edgar enjo}dng each other’s company. 

Finally. Edgar felt urged to discuss with a cultured 
priest the philosophy of life, of which the Sister had 
spoken so simply, yet with such firmness and decision. 
Quite confidently therefore he asked: “Father., are 
you really convinced of the truth of your religion?’’ 

Father. Of course I am! Do you think me a 
hypocrite ? 

Edgar. Oh no! But the existence of a personal 
God, the immortality of the soul, etc., are things one 
merely believes, but cannot know,—or at any rate, 
cannot prove. 

F. Granted that we only believe these truths 
without understanding them, are they for that rea¬ 
son less certain? It seems to me you confound the 
two meanings of the word “believe’’. It is sometimes 
used in the sense of “think”, that is, to express a 
doubtful opinion. If, for instance, seeing some one at 


4 


GOD, OR ATHKISM? 


a distance I should say, “I believe it is so and so,” 
by this I would mean that I am not sure of my knowl¬ 
edge; in this sense the word “believe” does not imply 
certainty. But the word has another meaning which 
not only does not imply uncertainty, but expresses a 
knowledge based on the testimony of others; and this 
knowledge may include absolute certainty. If, for 
instance, a trusted friend, one in whom I had the 
utmost confidence, should tell me something, and I 
should say, “I believe you on your word,” I should 
mean every doubt was absolutely excluded from my 
mind, just as though what he told me had been the 
object of my own perception. 

E. Oh, I know! That is all very well in theory ; 
but how rarely can we use the word “believe” in this 
second sense, especially in religious matters! 

F. But you will concede that if I “believe” — 
using the word in its second signification, which is its 
common acceptation in theology — I can attain full 
certainty through the testimony of another. Is it not 
essential that a judge in a court of justice should 
have positive certainty of the guilt of the criminal 
whom he sentences to death? And is not this cer¬ 
tainty often based only on what he “believes”, on 
the testimony of the witnesses? 

E. True, but it is possible, too, for the witnesses 
to swear to what is false. 

F. That may be, but there are other cases in 
which one is thoroughly secure, cases in which the 
testimony of the witnesses does not deceive. Do you 
doubt, for instance, that Constantinople is in Turkey? 

E. Of course not. 

F. Have you ever been there ? 


ALIv BKIAKF FOUNDED ON TESTIMONY. 5 

E. Oh, I know what you are driving at! 

F. Then you believe this merely on the testimony 
of others,— from the text-books of geography, for 
instance; nevertheless you are absolutely certain of 
the fact. 

E . I admit all that; but how can you derive from 
this the certainty of religious belief? Who has ever 
seen God or souls after death, so as to be able to testify 
to their existence ? 

F. God himself. 

E. But you are reasoning in a circle. I am sup¬ 
posed to believe God, that God exists; meanwhile I do 
not know at all that God does exist, or that He has 
spoken, or if He has spoken, what He may have said, 
or that what He has said is worthy of belief. 

F. Slowly! Slowly! The affair is not so desperate 
as you think. You would, of course, be right were I 
to begin by believing in God without any previous 
knowledge of Him; but that is not my position. 
First, I must know that God exists, that He has 
spoken, and that His word deserves credence; then, 
and only then, is my belief in Him reasonable. You 
see we are not quite so illogical as you imagine. 

E. Very well ! I am curious to see how you prove 
the existence of God independently of Christian faith . 

F. That is not so difficult as you think. However, 
it would lead us too far this evening. You are tired 
now; but if you will permit me to visit you occasion¬ 
ally, we will have a talk on the subject. 

E. Come by all means, Father : it is lonely here. 



6 


GOD, OR ATHKISM ? 


2. God, the Creator of the World. 

Having slept well, our patient felt much stronger 
the next morning. The conversation of the previous 
evening closely engaged his thoughts, and, as the 
priest entered at the usual hour, Edgar began: 

“Father, you were about to prove the existence of 
a personal God, and that, too, independently of the 
Christian faith, and in contradiction to the whole of 
modern science. ’ ’ 

Father. In contradiction certainly to materialism, 
pantheism, and atheism, as widely taught in German 
universities, but assuredly not in contradiction to 
reasonable science founded on truth. 

Edgar. You will scarcely bring up the so-called 
cosmological proof; science has done away with that 
long ago. 

F. Let us see if it has done away with it. Or what 
is better, you can see for yourself by an occasional 
glance at the subject as presented by my old friend, 
Father Pesch, in his “Weltrathsel”,* a copy of which 
I have brought with me. You can examine it at 
leisure, and judge whether your leaders of thought, 
such as Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Darwin, 
and others, can hold their ground against sound 
criticism and Christian philosophy; you can determine 
for yourself which system solves and explains more 
correctly “the great riddle of the universe,”—the 
undeniable fact that the world exists — the old philo¬ 
sophic system with God, or the new one without God. 

But for the present — are you able to infer from 
the existence of your watch there beside you, the 
existence of a watch-maker ? 

* “The Riddle of the Universe.” 


COSMOLOGICAL PROOF ; CAUSE AND EFFECT. 7 

E. Certainly. 

F. Well, in precisely the same way, I conclude 
from the existence of a world, the existence of a 
Creator. 

E. But that is an entirely different matter. 
Kxperience teaches me that every watch has been 
made by a watch-maker, as I have observed of many 
watches; but as I have not the same experience as 
regards the origin of the world, I cannot base my 
conclusion upon analogy. 

F. You are mistaken. Neither experience nor 
analogy forms the basis of your conclusion regarding 
the watch; you would draw the same conclusion the 
very first time your eyes fell on a watch. 

E. Then, pray, how do I come to such a con¬ 
clusion ? 

F. From the existence of an effect to the existence 
of a corresponding cause. You reason thus : every¬ 
thing has a cause, therefore the watch has a cause; 
for had it no cause of existence, it would not exist. 
Now this cause, which must needs be, lies either in the 
thing itself, or outside of it; it cannot be in the watch 
itself, therefore it must exist outside, and this cause 
I call “watch-maker”, whether a man, an ape, or 
anything else, is for the time being of little consequence. 

E. Good. But why couldn’t the cause lie in the 
watch itself? 

F. Had the watch the cause within itself, it would 
have manufactured itself, or rather it would not have 
been manufactured at all, but would of necessity sub¬ 
sist by virtue of its own nature and from all eternity. 
Both conditions are absurd: therefore the cause of the 
existence of the watch is not in the watch itself. 


8 


GOD, OR ATHEISM ? 


E. I see that the watch could not have manufac¬ 
tured itself, for that would imply its own pre-existence; 
but why can it not exist by virtue of an inner 
necessity ? 

F. For two reasons, either of which is sufficiently 
convincing. First, if it existed of its own intrinsic 
necessity, there could not possibly have been a time 
when it did not exist; according to that, it must have 
existed from all eternity. Now it certainly did not 
exist before Peter Hele, the inventor of watches. 
Secondly, if it existed by virtue of an inner necessity, 
it must continue to exist throughout all eternity, that 
is, it could not be destroyed, it could not lose an atom, 
it would be unchangeable. And yet, I can file off 
portions of it, crush it, melt it; moreover, it changes 
constantly, as it keeps time: therefore, it does not 
exist of necessity. 

E. I admit all that: the watch could not have 
created itself, nor could it have subsisted from all eter¬ 
nity as an uncreated being by virtue of its own intrin¬ 
sic necessity; but there is a third possibility: it may 
by some happy chance have suddenly sprung into 
existence. 

F. I might answer you with Wallenstein : “There 
is no chance”; or better, I might say, what men call 
chance is not a cause, but an absence of cause. The 
watch, and similarly the world, would have waited a 
long time for an existence, had it depended on the 
absence of a cause to call it into being. 

But let us make our subject a little more concrete. 
Just as before Peter Hele’s time, watches did not exist, 
so, previous to a certain definite time, human beings 
did not exist on this earth. We find human beings 


KANT-IyAPRACE THEORY. WINNER. 9 

existing at present. It is a settled fact that man has 
not evolved from the ape, or any other animal: there¬ 
fore, he has been created; and there is a Creator, a 
being who corresponding to this production possesses 
supreme perfections. This being I call God, the 
Creator of the world. 

E. Not so fast! Though your train of reasoning 
seems in the main logically correct, yet in your 
premises you have taken an unwarrantably wide 
range. Has it been proved that there was a time 
when human beings did not exist ? 

F. Why, it is precisely on this point that all mod¬ 
ern science agrees! According to scientists, the earth 
was at one time a fiery-fluid mass at so many 
hundred or thousand degrees Reaumur; and previous 
to that, following the Kant-Taplace theory, it was a 
gas-ball. Certainly human beings could not have 
existed under such conditions; no, nor any sort of 
living organisms. “There was a time,” says Wiener, 
for instance, “when the fiery-fluid condition of the 
earth would have rendered the existence of germs 
and cells utterly impossible. And as nothing but life¬ 
less atoms had existence before the origin of animate 
being, the latter must of necessity have originated 
from the former, and must have been produced under 
very special conditions entirely unknown to us .” 1 
Now, if this be true of life in general, it must be 
especially so of man. 

The human race therefore, has had a beginning: 
it is not eternal. The point on which men disagree 
at present is hoiv man began to exist. And as they 

1 Wiener, Grundziige der Weltordnung, p. 775. 


IO GOD, OR ATHKISM? 

will not on any condition hear of a Creator as 
taught by Christianity, they have taken refuge in Carl 
Vogt’s theory of the evolution of man from the ape. 

You must choose, therefore, either to honor an ape 
or some brute as your ancestor, or to admit the proof 
that there is a God and Creator, your whole “modern 
science’’ to the contrary notwithstanding. This God, 
therefore, is not merely the subject of our belief, but 
the subject of a scientific, well established conviction. 

E. Very well, if it must be so; I take my position 
with Vogt. 

F. Then you, like the rest of his followers, are 
driven there through perplexity, for science does not 
force you to it; on the contrary, it rather opposes the 
theory. The contrast between the organism of man 
and that of the ape is so marked, especially as regards 
brain capacity, that the development from ape to man, 
if possible at all, would have required an immense 
period of time, from which some fossil remains would 
certainly have been preserved. Moreover, had such 
evolution really taken place, the oldest remains of 
man which have come down to us, would show a 
lower order of development than under present con¬ 
ditions. Virchow, certainly an indisputable authority 
and one wholly above suspicion in this question, 
assures us of the contrary: 

“If we study the fossil of Quaternary man, who 
must certainly have been nearer our ancestors in the 
order of descent or rather of ascent, we always find 
man like ourselves . Even as late as ten years ago, if 
a skull happened to be dug out of peat, or found in 
lake-dwellings, or in ancient caverns, people were at 
once on the alert for wonderful signs of a wild, wholly 


MAN HAS NOT FVORVKD FROM THF APR. VIRCHOW. 11 

undeveloped condition. The ape was scented. But 
things have gradually taken a turn. The troglodytes, 
lake-dwellers, and turf-dwellers prove to have been 
quite a respectable society. In fact, their brain capacity 
was such as might well excite the envy of many a man 
of our own day. True, our Trench neighbors have 
warned us that we cannot build much on the size of 
skulls ; and as they may not have been filled exclu¬ 
sively with cerebrum, there was perhaps a greater 
amount of intermedial texture than in the brain of the 
present generation; moreover, the cerebrum, notwith¬ 
standing its quantity, may have been in a low stage of 
development. However, these are merely encourag¬ 
ing remarks for the consolation of wavering minds. 
On the whole we are forced to acknowledge that the fossil 
type of lower human development has yet to he found. 
In fact, if we take all the human fossils known and 
parallel them with the human race of the present 
day, we can positively assert that there is a much 
greater number of individuals of a relatively lower 
order of development in the latter than in the former. 
Whether the greatest geniuses of the Quaternary time 
have had the good fortune to transmit their bones to 
posterity, I do not venture to decide. But as a rule 
we conclude from the constitution of an individual 
fossil, the character of the majority not found. I will 
not do this. I will not assert that the few skulls found 
were typical of the whole race. However, I must say 
that the fossil of an ape's skull, or that of an ape man 
which could really have belonged to a human being, has 
not yet been found. Each new human fossil discovered 

has led us further and further from the problem. 

We can not teach it — we can not claim as an acquisition 



12 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


of science that man has descended from the ape or any 
other animal. ’ ’ 1 — So far Virchow. 

E. Why, this is indeed new to me ! Why are 
these words of Virchow not quoted in scientific works? 

F. Why not, indeed? The theory of man’s descent 
from the ape is, as you see, an arbitrary assumption 
devised simply to evade the cosmological proof of the 
existence of a Creator; the fossil remains of antiquity 
bear witness against it. 

Moreover, why is it that all these past centuries of 
which we have authentic account, have failed to evolve 
a man from a baboon or a gorilla? Why, have all the 
efforts of man’s ingenuity failed (as we have seen in 
Berlin) to humanize these animals ? Atheistic scientists 
can not certainly be accused of sparing their endeavors 
to undermine the argument of the existence of God by 
producing an example of such development. And if, 
according to Darwin’s theory of descent, man is but a 
grade in the evolution from the lowest animal organ¬ 
ism, why is there a standstill in man? Why does not 
this interior impulse towards perfection continue the 
process of development? Why, for instance, does not 
man gradually sprout wings? The desire to fly has 
not been lacking since the days of Daedalus and Icarus. 

E. We may have wings yet, Father, if the suc¬ 
cessors of Mr. Dilienthal carry on his experiments 
with more success than he had. 

F. Well, possibly. 

What you said about experience, I could with 
greater justice turn to account in my own argument: 
you cannot demand an experimental proof of me when 
I derive man from a single act of the creative will of 

1 Virchow, Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft, pp. 30—31. 


THE APE THEORY. 


God. just as you cannot demand a proof of experience 
that I can read a certain book, or that I can travel to 
Rome. Even though I may never have done so, I am 
free to do it once, then never again. It would be 
absurd to say that A or B cannot travel to Rome, 
because he has never actually made the journey. 

The case is different with your ape-theory, which 
is supposed to rest, not on the free determination of 
God, but on the interior constitution of the ape. If 
this disposition led at any one time to the development 
of man, why does it not lead to this result more 
frequently? Why do we not meet with similar trans¬ 
itions now? And, considering the vast difference in 
brain capacity between the ape and man, experience 
ought to furnish us fossil remains showing the degrees 
of transition in this development. But we do not find 
them, therefore we must regard your theory as 
exploded. 

E. Do not call this my theory. I am satisfied 
with Virchow’s conclusions regarding it. 

F. Now, all this holds merely as regards the 
corporeal difference between man and the ape. A far 
greater gap and specific difference will be observed, if 
you compare the unchanging instinct and the imitative 
faculty of the ape with the intellectual activity and 
susceptibility to culture in man, as exhibited these 
thousands of years in the past in the buildings and 
inscriptions of the Egyptians and Assyrians, and as 
shown in his constant advance from discovery to dis¬ 
covery. Can you explain, for example, how the 
monkey acquired the human language? Attempts at 
an explanation have indeed been made; but the ab¬ 
surdities into which even a distinguished naturalist 


i4 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


has been betrayed, shows the desperate straits to 
which he was reduced : 

“As monkeys certainly understand much that is 
said to them by man, and as in a state of nature they 
utter signal-cries of danger to their fellows, it does not 
appear altogether incredible, that some unusually wise 
ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the 
growl of a beast of prey, so as to indicate to his fellow- 
monkeys the nature of the expected danger. And 
this would have been a first step in the formation of 
a language. ’ ’ 1 

If this “bugaboo’’-theory is correct, why have we, 
men, who are surely on at least as high a grade of 
development as Darwin’s “unusually wise ape-like 
animal,” not succeeded in elevating the backward 
monkeys to the grade of man and in teaching them 
our language? 

“What was the origin of the human race?” asks 
Otto Henne-am-Rhein, a celebrated writer on civili¬ 
zation; and he adds: “The answer of Darwin and his 
school is familiar; but it is quite as well known that this 
highly esteemed philosopher and his gifted and earnest 
disciples can not tell how an Apollo Belvedere, a 
hast Judgment, a Hamlet, a Requiem, a Critique of 
Pure Reason, a Cosmos, the utilization of steam 
power, photography, and telegraphy, should have been 
produced by certain hairy animals climbing about on 
trees, while other hairy animals of the same species 
that still climb trees, never light a fire, cut a club, or 
even laugh ; nor is there any prospect that they will 
ever learn. And yet we are related to these animals 
— the entire structure of the human body proves it. 

1 Darwin, The Descent of Man, Vol. I, page 55. 


EVOLUTION. 


IS 


Who will solve the mystery ? In reality, we have not 
yet gone beyond the beautiful conception of the author 
of Genesis, that God breathed His breath into the first 
man. If we could regard this as a fact, then every¬ 
thing would be solved. ’ ’ 1 

Yes, indeed, everything is solved. And since no 
other solution is possible, and since man must have 
originated in some way, it follows that we are forced 
to accept his creation as a fact. I am, at present, as 
you see, in England; before the Kulturkampf, I was 
in Germany. Now if there is no other mode of travel 
from Germany to England than through the air, by 
water, or through a subterranean tunnel, it stands to 
reason, that, if I did not travel through the air, or 
avail myself of the tunnel, I must have traveled by 
water; and I am certain of this fact, even though I 
may have slept during the whole voyage. Therefore 
a pari: a man has come from non-existence into 
existence. Now, if he has not taken the Darwinian 
route, and there is no other road possible but that of 
creation, then creation, and with it the existence of 
a Creator, is a fact; it must be accepted as a fact 
even though we have not seen it with our own eyes. 
What have you to say now to the cosmological proof ? 
Has modern science quite done away with it, as you 
fancied ? 

E. You should have been a lawyer. There is 
logic in your argument; but do not ask me to answer 
you now ; please go on, so that I may have something 
to think over to-morrow. 

F. We have taken only one step ; but in taking it 
you were obliged to make a salto mortale from ape to 


Unsre Zeit, 1881, p. 717. 


GOD, OR ATHKISM? 


l6 

man, in order to evade the cosmological proof. I 
assure you, you will have to take a few more to 
remain an atheist. In the first place, similar salti 
occur in the thousands and thousands of species of 
the plant and animal world. And here I am not 
arguing the question whether the fox and the dog are 
a variety of the wolf, though to me it does not appear 
very probable; it is possible, however, that many have 
been considered species, which are only varieties now 
become permanent. But that there should be no 
distinct species in general, that a lion should be 
nothing but a casual variety of the earthworm, the 
butterfly, or the strawberry, is quite too much for me ! 

, Everything has its limits. In ancient times, as you 
know, there was an athlete who was able to carry 
an ox; he had commenced with a calf and practised 
daily until the calf had grown to be an ox. A devel¬ 
opment of strength such as this may be reached by 
artificial means, but it has its limits. I can not con¬ 
ceive, for instance, a man’s shouldering the “Blocks- 
berg’ ’ and carrying it to the top of Mt. Rigi. How¬ 
ever, an increase of human strength to such a degree 
would be less in quantity and, in any case, in¬ 
comparably less in quality than the development of an 
earthworm, or, if you will, the smallest animalcule into 
,a lion. I say rightly, therefore, that you must repeat 
your salto mortale as many times as there are different 
species of animals or plants, or you must yield to 
the cosmological proof. Does it still appear to you 
so untenable ? 

E. But you assume for each species a new creative 
act! That is certainly an easy way of explaining 
nature. Everything can be accounted for by a deus ex 


HACKEE’S METHODS. VIRCHOW'S TESTIMONY. 17 

machina. Has it never occurred to you that during the 
past millions of years there has probably been ample 
time for the necessary evolution? Besides, Hackel has 
shown that the embryos of different species resemble 
each other very closely, while the fully developed 
animals manifest the widest difference. 

F. So you have taken refuge with Hackel ! Do 
you not know that he has resorted to the basest fraud 
to prove what he wishes to prove ? Three times has 
he brought forward the same cliche of an embryo and 
presented it as three cliches of different sorts. It is not 
astonishing that the three embryos looked alike ! 1 But 
apart from this, another sdlto mortale awaits you before 
you come to the first animal or plant species from 
which, according to Darwin and Hackel, the rest of 
the organic world is supposed to evolve. 

And here again I agree with Wiener, and indeed 
with all modern scientists, that as a matter of fact 
organic formations are not eternal, whatever philo¬ 
sophy may say regarding the possibility of an eternal 
and, at the same time, mutable being. Just as in 
traveling from Germany to England I was obliged 
to choose one of three ways, and come by land, air, or 
water, so in this case there are only two ways of 
transition from the inorganic to the organic world, 
either the development of the first organism out of in¬ 
organic matter without a Creator — the so - called 
generatio aequivoca — or the assumption of a creative 
co-operation of God. The first mentioned does not 

1 Cf. “The Existence of God Demonstrated,” Hammer- 
stein, p. 85 (Burns and Oats, London, 1897); also the writings 
of Dr. Otto Hamann, “Professor Ernst Hackel in Jena und 
seine Kampfesweise” (Gottingen, Peppmiiller, 1893). 


i8 


GOD, OR ATHBISM? 


correspond with experience; we must, therefore, accept 
the second and with it the existence of God. 

That these are the only two conceivable ways, even 
Virchow acknowledged before an assembly of. natural 
scientists held in Munich in 1877: “We are not in 
possession of any established fact which proves that a 
generatio aequivoca has ever taken place, that is a 
spontaneous generation in which inorganic masses, 
say, for instance, the association Carbon & Co., have 
ever spontaneously developed into organic masses. 
Notwithstanding this, I admit that if we seek to form 
a conception of how the first organized being could 
have originated of itself, nothing remains but to fall 
back on spontaneous generation. This is clear. If I 
refuse to accept a theory of creation, if I will not 
believe that there is a special Creator who has taken a 
clod of earth and breathed a living breath into it, if I 
want to develop a theory of my own,—'then I must 
start with a generatio aequivoca . Tertium non datur. 
If I refuse to accept creation, and still seek an ex¬ 
planation, nothing else remains. This being the first 
thesis, I must go on to the second, and say: therefore, 
I accept a generatio aequivoca. A11 experimental proof, 
however, we do not possess. No mortal has ever seen 
the process of a generatio aequivoca; and every one 
who has maintained that he has, has been contradicted, 
not by theologians, but by scientists.” 

Well, what about the cosmological argument? Do 
you still think it has collapsed before “modern 
science” ? 

E. You overwhelm me with arguments and 
authorities ; still, I will not give in yet. Even though 
a spontaneous generation may not take place at pres- 


AN “UNKNOWN CAUSE.”— 


19 


ent, other conditions may have prevailed in primitive 
epochs which could have effected such a generation. 
I appeal, therefore, to an unknown cause of this kind. 

F. An “unknown cause”? That reminds me of 
certain patrons of the judicial courts. If they are 
discovered suddenly in possession of a horse which has 
disappeared somewhere else, they have always pur¬ 
chased it from an “unknown man” at the market. 
But the judge unfailingly compliments them: “It is 
very peculiar that just you should always buy some¬ 
thing of an unknown man at the market. ’ ’ However, 
it might happen that a horse-thief old in the business 
would actually buy a horse honestly from an unknown 
person ; but that life should suddenly, and indepen¬ 
dently of exterior influence develop from lifeless matter, 
— life, which, according to observations conducted 
through thousands of years could not possibly have 
lurked in it, — no one can ever convince me of that! 
Have you anything else to adduce against the cosmo¬ 
logical proof? 

E. Oh, many things, I suppose, could be brought 
forward. But what you have read to me from Virchow 
has made an impression on me. If there are facts 
which can be explained in no other way than by 
accepting a creative interference, and with it a Creator, 
then one is compelled, even by science, to accept a 
Creator. 

F. If it is not too much for you to-day, we will 
just touch upon the teleological proof, or the design- 
argument as it is called. 

E. Yes, this proof is in rather ill repute; I should 
like to see you handle it. 

F. The world is spread out before us. “Modern 


20 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


science’ 7 describes it as a structure, which, without a 
uniform plan (for it denies an architect), has reached 
its present state of perfection by means of a series of 
fortunate accidents, or rather of impossible salti mortali 
from inanimate matter up to thinking man. Chris¬ 
tian philosophy, on the other hand, regards it as a 
whole, created by distinct acts according to a uniform 
plan. Now, look out upon the world, and tell me 
what origin stands written on its forehead : Is it chance 
or design? How does it happen that every insect, 
every worm, every mammal, finds its corresponding 
nourishment? Whence comes the instinct of the field- 
mouse to gnaw off the sprouts of the garnered corn, to 
prevent its growth ? How is it that the male of the 
horned beetle in the larval state hollows out for himself a 
cavity twice as large as the female provides for herself, 
although in this state both insects are of the same size ? 
Does the male know anything of his future horns, much 
larger than those of the female, and which will need 
more space ? Who teaches the cuckoo to distinguish 
the nests of insect-eating birds from others, so that she 
may lay her eggs in those only whose owners will 
provide proper nourishment for her young ? Who has 
taught the bee to fix at 70° 32' the acute angles of the 
rhomboid with which she closes her cell, securing in 
this way the most economic form, fixed at 70° 34' by 
mathematicians of the first rank (owing to an error in 
the table of logarithms) ? 1 How is it possible for the 
funnel-roller (Rynchites betulae ) to cut in the leaves 
of the birch an evolute, for the computation of which 
mathematicians use the differential and integral cal- 

1 Cf. The Existence of God Demonstrated, p. 163. 


THE DESIGN-ARGUMENT. 


21 


cuius ? 1 And who has instructed the burrowing wasp 
{genus Odynerus ) in anatomy, so that it can wound and 
paralyze without killing the insects that are to serve 
later on as food for its progeny ? 2 How is it that the 
atmosphere is mixed in just the proportion which 
corresponds to the breathing organs of the whole 
animal world, and that, of the all but infinite number 
of possible combinations of different gases, that one 
actually exists in which we can live ? How is it that 
the inhabitants of the earth are provided with exactly 
the temperature most conducive to their particular 
organism, with a force of attraction corresponding to 
their strength, and an atmospheric pressure bearable 
by their structure? The temperature might, for 
instance, be several thousand degrees Reaumur; or, as 
would be the case on many of the heavenly bodies, 
our weight might be several tons and pull us to 
the ground; or the atmospheric pressure might be a 
hundred times greater and crush us to the earth. 
Whence comes that remarkable circulation of water, 
which nourishes the vegetable world as rain, sinks 
again into the earth, is purified and mixed with useful 
minerals, and, bubbling forth from the rocks, affords 
the fish a suitable habitation in brooks and rivers; 
then, flowing to the sea, is evaporated by the sun¬ 
beams, forms clouds, and falls again as rain? How is 
it that water — one of the few exceptions — does not 
become denser with continued reduction of tempera¬ 
ture, but has its greatest density and consequently its 
greatest weight, at four degrees above zero? Were it 
subject to the universal law, ice, instead of floating on 

1 Cf. The Existence of God Demonstrated, p. 165. 

2 Id., p. 154. 


22 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


water, would sink; the sea would then be frozen to a 
block of ice, and the intense cold would soon render 
it impossible for man to live on the earth. How does 
it happen, finally, that the lifeless minerals group 
themselves into crystals with such mathematical 
precision ? 

If you say that this is the work of chance, then I 
say with the same, and even with greater right, that 
Goethe’s “Faust” is nothing but fly-specks; that 
Goethe never conceived its plan; that accidentally he 
had several sheets of white paper in his room, and in his 
absence the flies by a happy chance left the marks of 
their presence in regular order so as to produce the 
letters, verses, and scenes of “Faust”. This I call 
a “scientific” explanation of the existence of “Faust”. 
On the other hand, an attempt to conclude from the 
existence of this masterpiece that a poet lived who 
planned “Faust”, would be quite as contradictory 
to “modern science”, as to conclude from the wonder¬ 
ful harmony in nature the existence of a Creator. 

If you explain the adaptation to an end manifest in 
the whole universe, by the Darwinian theory, or by 
a mere impulse towards adaptation, whence, let me 
ask, is the esthetic in nature ? Whence come the beau¬ 
tiful designs on the wings of butterflies — designs 
which have obviously no further practical purpose? 
Whence the beauty of the landscape, whence the 
Alpine glow, the aurora, the rainbow, the starry 
heavens in all their glory? Is this beauty also the 
result of mere chance ? 

If all this is the effect of an unknown, arbitrary, 
blind impulse to conformity, and not the result of the 
voluntary act of a personal Creator,' omnipotent in 


THE TEEEOEOGICAE PROOF (PESCH). 23 

carrying out His designs of wisdom and beauty, — 
how is it, for instance, that the unsymmetrical position 
of the heart and other interior organs of the human 
body is not detected in the exterior ? As it is, there 
is a most beautiful symmetry between the right and 
th.e left side of the human body. How can you 
account for this? 

‘ E. But, Father, I do not deny that there is a con¬ 
formity to plan in the universe. 

F. If there is a conformity to plan, then there 
must certainly be someone who planned. 

E. Yes, in case this conformity in nature does not 
proceed from inner necessity in nature itself. 

F. But who is supposed to have endowed nature 
with such necessity? 

E. It has been in it from all eternity. 

F. Then you return again to the absurdity of 
necessary beings which are at the same time not neces¬ 
sary, because mutable. No, my friend, there is no 
absolute necessity that the bee, for instance, should 
construct its angle at 70° 32': this is only a conditional 
necessity, one with which the Creator of the bee has 
endowed it, — a necessity which once imparted must 
afterwards perforce produce its effects. It is not 
due to chance ; and the bee has not made the com¬ 
putation. But a computation is there, and no one else 
could have made it but the One who created the bee. 
Now, candidly, what do you think? Has science done 
away with all the proofs of the existence of God ? 

E. You will have your laugh over it, Father. 

F. Well, my laugh will not do you any harm, 
if it leads you back to your Father and Creator in 
heaven. Allow me to read you a passage from Pesch’s 


24 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


“Weltrathsel”. It will be a fitting conclusion to the 
thoughts I have just placed before you: 

“Thus it is demonstrated,’’ Fr. Pesch writes, “that 
this one intelligence is not to be sought in cosmic 
conditions. Because these are multiple; every multi¬ 
plicity of means which works unconsciously to one 
uniform end, inevitably necessitates the assumption 
of an indivisible unity exterior to that multiplicity. 
Just as the various materials and constituent elements 
of a work of art cannot arrange themselves by virtue 
of their own inherent power, so the countless in¬ 
dividual parts of this universe could not have arranged 
themselves in accordance with the highly complex 
order of the cosmos ; for this, an all-embracing power 
and intelligence is postulated. ’ ’ 1 

1 Pesch, Weltrathsel I, n. 463. 



3. Objections. 

Edgar. After our conversation of yesterday, I must 
confess, reverend Father, that the enigmas of the 
universe can scarcely be solved except by the assump¬ 
tion of a personal Creator. Nevertheless, it seems to 
me that this assumption likewise involves contra¬ 
dictions. The existence of the world is, therefore, a 
riddle, and will doubtless remain one. 

Father. A*nd what are these contradictions, may 
I ask? 

E. In the first place, we find in the world not only 
what is conformable to plan, but what is distinctly 
opposed to it, for instance, the eruptions of volcanoes 
involving the destruction of whole cities. Your teleo¬ 
logical proof seems to me valueless. 

F. My dear friend, if your watch fails to keep 
time, do you conclude that it is not the work of a 
watchmaker ? 

E. No, rather that the watchmaker was a bungler. 

F. With as little right can you conclude from 
your alleged discords in nature, that there is no God, 
and that the teleological proof lacks basis; the utmost 
that you can conclude is that this God is not all-wise. 
To prove the existence of God requires but one, in¬ 
controvertible instance of conformity to plan in the 
construction of the universe. 

E. But these violations of the law of adaptation 
prove, at least, that this God is not so wise as you 
assume. 

(25) 


26 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


F. Not even that is proved by your hypothetical 
discords. First, you must not overlook the fact that the 
world as something created, therefore finite, cannot £e 
the embodiment of all perfection. It could be longer 
and broader; it could be older, more beautiful, and 
also better adapted to the end ; the human organism, 
for instance, might have been rendered less liable to 
contract diseases. God alone is infinitely perfect; the 
world cannot be, nor is it supposed to be perfect. But 
it is one thing to be perfect in a merely finite manner, 
another to be actually discordant and contradictory. 
The world does not-possess all conceivable perfections, 
nor with equal truth does it abound in dis6t>rds. What 
you regard as discords, volcanic eruptions, for instance, 
prove at most that greater precautions against calami¬ 
ties might possibly have been made. And even this 
is not proved in all cases. It is precisely these ap¬ 
parent defects and irregularities which, in the hand 
of God, are often the means of attaining higher ends; 
for example, they maintain in man a consciousness of 
his own weakness and his dependence on God. — 
Similarly you will find in the rest of creation things 
which, judged from a narrow circle of ideas, appear 
discordant, but, viewed from a higher standpoint, are 
wonderfully adapted to the end. To the insect, for 
instance, the existence of insect-eating birds is a dis¬ 
advantage; but, for creation in general, it is a great 
benefit, as the insects would otherwise destroy every¬ 
thing. Apparent exceptions such as these show all 
the more clearly the conscious plan of the universe as 
a whole ; and if any of these exceptions still awaits 
an explanation, we are safe in assuming that it admits 
one. 


IS GOD CRUDD? 


27 


Besides you cannot hold God accountable for cer¬ 
tain misfortunes, especially in the social life of man; 
on the contrary they must be ascribed to their true 
origin, the perversity, the sins of man, to whom God 
has given a free will, and whose perversity He does 
not always check, even if He has the power to do so. 

E. If you turn to the moral order and free will, 
reverend Father, then let me say a word about hell, 
which God, as you conceive Him, is supposed to keep 
in readiness for sinners. I cannot believe in a God 
who consigns his creatures to eternal damnation. 

F. And why not ? 

E. Because such a Being would be indescribably 
cruel. 

F. You have gone again beyond the mark. But, 
granted that it really is cruel, that would not weaken 
the proofs of the existence of such a Being. My argu¬ 
ments prove that a God exists, and your objection, 
even were it well-founded, proves at most that this 
God is cruel, not that He does not exist. 

E. Would you have me believe in a cruel Creator? 

F. Certainly not; for it is not cruel to inflict on a 
person a punishment which he deserves. 

E. But is it not cruel to punish with an eternal 
punishment a sin which lasted perhaps but a moment ? 

F. Then it would also be cruel for the state to 
sentence to death an anarchist, who has blown up the 
whole parliament with a dynamite bomb. 

E. But the criminal’s death like his crime lasts 
only a moment. 

F. 0 Not at all: it deprives the criminal of earthly 
life for all eternity. In the same way hell deprives 
him of heavenly life, the vision of God, for all eternity. 


28 GOD, OR ATHKISM? 

E. But hell, according to your view, adds positive 
torments. 

F. Yes, meted according to the sinner’s deserts. 

E. But it is not always in the power of the sinner 
to avoid sin. 

F. Certainly it is ; for in case it is not in his 
power, the act or omission loses for that very reason 
the character of sin. According to Catholic doctrine 
at least, God dispenses to all men sufficient grace to be 
saved, and allows no one to be lost who does all in his 
power. Lutheran doctrine, of course, takes quite 
another view of the matter; for the Smalkald Article 
condemns as an error of papistry the Catholic prin¬ 
ciple: “Man has (after the Fall) a free will to do 
good and to avoid evil, or conversely, to omit good and 
do evil. ... If man does all in his power, God will 
certainly give him this grace. ’ ’ 1 

The Calvinists go even further; they teach directly 
that God has predestined a portion of mankind to 
hell, and that, whatever efforts after virtue these 
persons may make, they cannot escape their destiny. 

E. I am not at all concerned about Luther, or 
Calvin. But even your God is cruel, for He should 
not give man a freedom, the misuse of which will 
plunge him into hell. 

F. In that case God would not be as good as He 
is ; for it would be impossible for Him to reward with 
Heaven the good who make a proper use of their free¬ 
dom. Man under such conditions would scarcely differ 
from the brute. 

E. Well, at least God should not give free will to 

1 Smalkald. Art. Von der Siinde (Ausg. v. Walch, 
Jena 1750, p. 306). 


THE EXISTENCE OF HEEL, EOGICAE. 29 

those who He foresees will make bad use of it. A 
father certainly does not give a revolver to his son if 
he foresees that the boy will shoot himself, whether on 
purpose or otherwise. 

F. Your view would ensure a fine condition of 
society. Bach one could say to himself: It is impos¬ 
sible for me to be damned, otherwise God would not 
have given me free will, in fact, He would not have 
created me at all. Consequently, I can calmly take 
every license, give myself up to every crime, as I have 
nothing whatever to fear from hell. 

E. But you forget, reverend Father, that it is pre¬ 
cisely that sort of men whom God would not have 
created, or at least the sort to whom He would not 
have given free will. 

F. Whatever way we view it your postulate is a 
very strange one. It places the Creator in a very 
unworthy dependence on His own creatures; He must 
needs first ask them whether they will abuse free will, 
and whether He may accordingly create them. Under 
such conditions the universe would resemble a state, 
in which the absolute monarch would have to abstain 
entirely from energetic and effective use of the penal 
code. 

No, my friend, God is not merely all good and all 
merciful, He is likewise all just, and necessarily so; 
He is merciful towards the good and just towards the 
wicked, — meting to each, not merely with temporal, 
but also with eternal measure, punishment as well as 
reward. 

E. I shall never be reconciled to this. 

F. Why should not the sinner be eternally 
damned? Why not, if he has allowed the time of 


30 


GOD, OR ATHKISM? 


probation to pass heedlessly here on earth, while at 
every moment the arms of divine mercy were open 
to him ? Beyond the grave there is no conversion. 
Where the tree falls there it lies. It is to himself 
that the sinner must attribute his eternal misery. 
God shall however be glorified, if not by the sinner’s 
happiness (as was His design in creating man), at 
least in the exercise of justice. Moreover, God knows 
how to draw profit for the rest of mankind from the 
sinner’s fall. Many a bishop who has come upon 
a traitor among the clergy of his diocese, may have 
drawn consolation in the memory that there was a 
Judas even among the apostles. 

E. But apart from cruelty, Father, your God im¬ 
plies a contradiction. 

F. Well, what is it? 

E. You have just proved clearly that the universe 
can not subsist of its own power, of its own intrinsic 
necessity, because it is mutable. Hence God can with 
as little reason subsist of His own power, since He too 
is mutable. And since He cannot, according to your 
assumption, exist by virtue of a power exterior to 
Himself, i. e., He cannot have been created by another 
Being, He cannot, consequently, have any existence. 

F. I shall strengthen your objection by quoting 
a concrete example of what you call His mutability. 
When God revealed the coming of the Deluge, Holy 
Writ tells us: “It repented Him that He had made 
man on the earth. ’ ’ 1 

E. Very good ; what answer can you give to this? 

F. I say that, as regards actual change in God, it 
is simply out of the question. Holy Scripture presents 


1 Genesis 6, 6. 


IS GOD changeable? 


31 


Him as speajdng after the manner of man. In reality 
God is immutable in His determinations; what He 
wills and accomplishes at any time, He has decreed 
from all eternity. It is only the human element which 
changes ; and, according to the good or evil demeanor 
of man, God measures out to him reward or punish¬ 
ment. The one as well as the other, He has willed 
from eternity according to the different moral atti¬ 
tudes of man. Were God mutable, He would not 
exist of Himself, but would have been created by 
another being, and this last by another, and so on 
until you would come to an immutable being existing 
by virtue of His own power. Hither that, or you 
would assume an infinite series of Creators without 
an uncreated being at its head. That would be as 
great an absurdity as a genealogy without a progenitor. 
Whoever would maintain the existence of such a 
series, might just as well say that he had eaten several 
eggs, a second, a third, etc., but not a firsfi The other 
assumption, on the contrary, that God is the funda¬ 
mental cause of all being precisely 011 account of His 
immutability and His existence of intrinsic necessity 
from all eternity,—this is not only not a contradiction, 
but the purest actuality. 

E. But did not the mere production of the world 
bring about a change in God, spend His strength for 
instance, or, at least, enlarge His dominions? 

F. Were He finite, limited, as we are, that would 
be true; but if He is, on the contrary, infinitely per¬ 
fect, it is impossible. The greater one’s store of strength, 
the less fatigue in his work; therefore, He who pos¬ 
sesses infinite strength cannot possibly feel fatigue. 
And as to enlarging His dominions, God already in- 


32 


GOD, OR ATHEISM ? 


eludes in Himself all perfections ; the increase in His 
power by the creation of the world would, therefore, 
be as little and even less than the increase in knowl¬ 
edge of a professor of mathematics, were a child to 
inform him that two times two is four . 1 

E. These abstract ideas are more familiar to you, 
Father, than to me. 

F. You lack only facility in handling them, my 
friend. For I see you have grasped the fundamental 
idea, namely, that a mutable being cannot include in 
itself the reason of its own existence, hence we must 
finally assume the existence of another being, neces¬ 
sarily self-existing. This is in fact the main point in 
the cosmological argument; to understand it, however, 
requires some philosophical depth. This one thought 
makes short work of pantheism or atheism. And if 
in the future other opponents of the cosmological proof 
should arise and attempt to explain the world without a 
Creator, in a way different from Hegel, Schopenhauer, 
Darwin, and Hackel, —this one idea, namely that the 
universe is mutable, that there is constantly taking 
place within it growth and decay, therefore, it cannot 
subsist of an inner necessity; that this very fact postu¬ 
lates another necessarily existing being as the funda¬ 
mental cause of all being, —this idea alone will strike 
at the very foundation of their theories. 

This was grasped even by Aristotle, whose train of 

1 For a fuller argument on this point see Hammerstein’s 
“The Existence of God Demonstrated,” p. 31 (London, Burns 
and Oates, 1897). In the same work may be found further 
objections to the existence of God (pp. 262—302). The views of 
Spinoza, Schopenhauer, David Strauss, Spencer, Helmholtz, 
Kuno Fischer, Hartmann, Buchner, Tyndall, and Schneider 
are discussed. 


P. pksch ; wextrxthsex. 33 

thought is given in the following order by Father 
Pesch : 

“As the motion and change in the universe pro¬ 
ceeds from some moving principle, so this motion — 
even though considered progressing from all eternity 
— postulates a moving principle which, as the pre¬ 
supposition of all motion, must in itself be immutable. 
(Or popularly expressed: The active must always 
precede the passive.) This consequence cannot be 
weakened by the assumption that motion in material 
things results from their mutual action on each other^ 
Because the active principle must always include what 
the passive is going to become, the same thing cannot 
therefore be simultaneously, and in the same meaning, 
active and passive. The existence of the mutable pre¬ 
supposes the immutable. It is absolute, inasmuch as 
it cannot be conceived as non-existent. . . Changeless, 
the Divine Being rests in the one thought in which 
God thinks Himself; in this subsists His life and 
happiness. ’ ’ 1 

God is, therefore, the fundamental cause of all 
being. He is absolute, and of necessity loves and wills 
His existence. He disposes created things, because, 
when, and as He wills; He gives them being, or does 
not, just as He wills. In virtue of this freedom, He 
at one time created out of nothing the whole universe, 
and indeed (if we follow the Kant-Taplace theory) in 
the form of an immense gas-ball. This rotating on 
itself cooled; and, according to mechanical laws and 
by virtue of the centrifugal force, separated into the 
various heavenly bodies. Finally, our earth appeared 
as an individual planet; at first, as a gaseous, later, as 
a fiery-fluid body; finally, after a still greater lower- 

1 Pesch, S. J., Weltrathsel I., n. 456. 


34 


GOD, OR ATHEISM ? 

ing of temperature, as a solid, — devoid, however, of 
any germ of organic life. 

E. If you have studied the Kant-Taplace theory 
from Kant’s own works, Father, you are greatly mis¬ 
taken. Kant has built his theory more on the imagin¬ 
ation than on the principles of mechanics, as has 
been explicitly proved. 

F. I have not taken my views either from Kant or 
Faplace. The “Systeme du Monde” by the latter is 
rather difficult to read. But some years ago I came 
across a “Cosmogony” by Carl Braun, S. J. , x in which 
the subject is thoroughly, and, in general, cleverly 
treated. I may have given his mathematical concepts; 
however, what I have to say about organic life is quite 
independent of mechanics. 

E. Well, we left the earth solid but devoid of life. 

F. By degrees it cooled so that organic life could 
flourish upon its surface. But where was life to come 
from ? It was only through another interposition of 
the divine creative will that the first cell could be ob¬ 
tained from which the various species of plant and 
animal life evolved. 

There was still wanting to the whole a king, a 
being who could think and will, who could recognize 
and love his Creator. Then God created man, to His 
own image and likeness, endowing him with reason 
and free will. 

This is the only possible solution of the world’s 
enigma. Without God, and out of nothing, even out 
of eternal, unorganized matter (if this were possible), 
you can never explain the world. With God, every¬ 
thing is explained, at least all contradiction is done 

1 Munster, Aschendorff, 1889 and 1896. 


THE ONEY POSSIBLE SOLUTION. 


35 


away with ; for of course we are unable to penetrate 
the depths of the Divine Being. Think, for a moment, 
how many created things are veiled from us. This 
much alone is clear to us: The only possible explana¬ 
tion of the universe is obtained by the assumption of 
a Creator extramundane as well as personal, i. e., 
one who thinks and wills. The opposite theory, the 
so-called monistic or pantheistic, not only leaves the 
mind in darkness, but of necessity leads to absurdities. 

The inmost being of God is then unfathomable 
to us. Nevertheless, tho.se perfections which He has 
imparted to the world, must exist in Him, the Author 
“of the world, in an incomparably higher degree. If 
the world occupies a space immeasurable, bordering 
on the infinite, God’s presence must transcend even 
these limits ; if the world is beautiful, the beauty of 
God must be inexpressibly greater; if man can think 
and will, the Author of his existence, the Being who 
has devised and willed man’s creation, must possess 
these prerogatives in a far higher perfection ; if it is 
a perfection in man to be virtuous, especially to be 
truthful in his manifestation, this must be true of his 
Creator in a manner indescribably more perfect. 

E. Your idea of God is truly magnificent! 

F. But we can penetrate a step further into the 
depths of the Godhead. God must possess all imagin¬ 
able perfections not only in a very high degree, but 
in a degree absolutely infinite. This follows from 
a concept of a being subsisting with absolute neces¬ 
sity. This infinite perfection is evident, first as regards 
the duration in time; that is, God must not only sur¬ 
pass in age the whole universe as He has created it, 
but He must be infinite in age, that is, He must be 


36 


GOD, OR ATHEISM? 


eternal. Because if He were not eternal, He must 
have been created by another; were He not eternal, 
He would not of necessity exist, but He would exist 
in such a way that He could also not exist; therefore, 
He had no beginning, and He will never cease to be. 
And what holds true of His existence in general, is true 
likewise of all His attributes. If He did not possess 
infinite knowledge, infinite power, infinite veracity, 
then these attributes would be capable of increase; for 
instance, what I do not know, I can still learn. But 
if these attributes of God were capable of increase, 
then God would suffer a change; any change is re¬ 
pugnant to the concept of a being existing of necessity: 
therefore, God possesses all imaginable perfections so 
infinitely that they are not capable of increase, and so 
necessarily, that they cannot be diminished by any 
means whatever. 

If you wish to draw a further conclusion, it follows 
directly from the foregoing that polytheism is utter 
nonsense. There can be only one God. Because were 
there two Gods, each would be mutually limited in 
His power, neither would be infinitely perfect, neither 
would be God. 

The one God, who forms an absolutely necessary 
postulate of science, is,'therefore, the first cause of all 
actual and conceivable existence. 

E. Yes, as soon as you convince me that God 
forms the necessary postulate of science , I will be 
reconciled to the idea of His existence. 

F. I have still hope of convincing you. However, 
I would like to see you give your thoughts a more 
practical turn. God the Almighty, the beneficent, is 
also your Creator. You are, therefore, in duty bound 


THE ONL,Y POSSIBLE SOLUTION. 


37 


to acknowledge and to honor Him as such ; you are 
in duty bound to thank Him for giving you being ; 
you are in duty bound to commend yourself to His 
goodness by prayer. He, the infinitely perfect and, 
consequently, omniscient God, sees every motion of 
your heart, sees, therefore, every prayer. Turn to 
account your illness, your isolation, and pray to your 
Creator and Ford, to your Father in heaven. It will 
not injure you, of that you may rest convinced; and it 
may be of great advantage to you for time and eternity. 



4- God the Fundamental Source of all Justice and 
all Duty. 

Edgar. That was a very instructive conversation 
last evening, Rev. Father. I have learned to view 
matters from another standpoint. It is in the end 
more in accord with the spirit of science to consider 
matters from all sides. Then, too, I have been reading 
Pesch’s “Weltrathsel”, in which little mercy is shown 
to atheism. 

Father. But have you prayed? 

E. You know how to put point-blank questions, 
Father. Yes, I acknowledge my weakness: I have pray¬ 
ed, but only conditionally. I reasoned in this fashion: if 
there is no God, if there is nothing but this tangible 
world, and if with this life all is over, it cannot do any 
harm to say a prayer; at most it betrays but a little 
weakness for which I am accountable to no one. If, 
on the other hand, a God exists, to whom I owe my 
being, and before whom my inmost thoughts lie bare, 
then I am really doing myself a great injury in ignor¬ 
ing Him. And so I prayed. 

F. How, may I ask ? 

E. Oh, I said the “Our Father” as I learned it 
at my mother’s knee. It was the first time for many 
a year. However, I was obliged to force myself to it. 
It seemed to me a contradiction. 

F. In what way? 


(33) 


WHY THE DOCTRINE OF HEEE IS UNPOPULAR. 39 


E. You know yourself that the modern science of 
to-day pays homage chiefly to monism ; it does not 
admit an extramundane God, Of course, the first 
principles of this so-called science are, as I see now, 
rather thread-bare; still, I do not understand why so 
many learned men deny the existence of God. 

F. Because it is not at all agreeable to keep the 
ten commandments imposed by this God. 

E. But what have scientific convictions to do with 
practical life ? 

F. Very much; for it is an old law that what one 
wishes to believe he readily believes. Suppose a 
lawyer has a case to plead. After some study he will 
be almost convinced of the justice of the case entrusted 
to him; while his opponent will just as firmly main¬ 
tain the opposite to be true. Now, if there is a God 
who has said: “Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou 
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,” — 
unless the doctrine of the eternity of hell is an 
idle tale—woe to those who transgress these command¬ 
ments. They have no peace, until they are reconciled 
with God, or — if they will not consent to that, nor 
amend their lives — until they persuade themselves 
there is no God. And if, in spite of all their efforts, 
they cannot convince themselves of this, they will, at 
least, hold as an unimpeachable dogma that God is 
all-merciful, — therefore, that there is no hell. 

Now, contemplate the social condition of the mod¬ 
ern cultivated world, and you have the key to the 
real or pretended infidelity of so many of these savants. 

E . Is that your conviction? 

F. Certainly it is. Were the existence of God a 
truth having no more bearing upon practical life than 


40 GOD THE FUNDAMENTAL, SOURCE OF ADD JUSTICE- 

the Pythagorean theory, there would be no atheists. 
Hence they employ every mode of fallacious reason¬ 
ing to set aside the troublesome Judge with His moral 
code and eternal punishment. 

This is the only conclusion I can draw when I see 
so many pretended results of natural science. Some 
time ago it was an accepted fact that Tangenbeck (if 
I am not mistaken) had succeeded in proving that the 
shape of the skull was so varied in the different races, 
that it seemed impossible for them* to have descended 
from one pair. At present it is the tendency to refer • 
the origin of all these different races not, indeed, to a 
single pair, but even to an ape, and still more irration¬ 
ally to a single protoplastic cell without skull or brain. 
Now, why this radical change? Because the authen¬ 
ticity of the Mosaic account of the creation, and with 
it the Sacred Scriptures and Christianity . in general, 
must be done away with in some way or another; they 
think, if they can accomplish this, they will be able 
to deny with impunity the existence of the Creator. 

E. You believe then that the burden of the Chris¬ 
tian moral law is the principal cause of infidelity? 

F. Certainly it is. Doubtless there are many who 
join the ranks simply because others do so; and there 
are others, perhaps, who hope by the establishment of 
a new philosophical theory to make a name for them¬ 
selves. Now, in case an aspirant of this latter class 
does not possess the genius of a Kepler or a Newton to 
discover new truths, he helps himself, consciously or 
unconsciously, by inventing new errors, and, of course, 
instinctively selects such as will pander to the popular 
taste. In this way a system is built up in which not 
the doctrine of the cross, indeed, but the doctrine of 


THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OE ATHEISM. 41 

“sound sensuality” is taught. This is the secret of 
our modern philosophy! 

E. Your judgment is severe. 

F. But true. 

E. Not quite so, as I see it. For there are many 
upright Protestants who, though not denying the 
existence of God, yet deny that His existence can be 
demonstrated. 

F. There you are right. The “Kreuzzeitung” fur¬ 
nishes an example of this in a review of my work, 
“The Existence of God Demonstrated”. Our reviewer 
thus expresses his opinion : “If the existence of God 
can be so logically proved, then all those who attend 
the Roman institutions of learning, in which they 
receive such clear and irrefutable proofs of the exist¬ 
ence of God, should carry with them through life an 
ineradicable belief in God. ’ ’ 1 

E. Exactly; and what have you to say to that? 

F. I say that the ‘ ‘ Kreuzzeitung’ ’ has mistaken evi¬ 
dence for simple certainty. It is evident , for instance, 
that three is more than two; to doubt this would be 
impossible, no matter how much we would like to. 
On the other hand, it is a matter of simple certainty, 
but not evident, that the Jews originally came from 
Palestine. Now, were it a man’s interest to throw 
a doubt on this truth (say, to secure an inheritance), 
he could finally persuade himself, even against reason, 
that the fact is not after all absolutely certain. So 
with the existence of God, with His ten command¬ 
ments, and His eternal punishment: when the moral 
restraint grows too uncomfortable, and the human 
intellect seeks to get rid of these truths, it can in a 

1 Neue Preussische (Kreuz-) Zeitung, Dec. 22, 1891. 


42 GOD THE FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE OF ALL JUSTICE. 

measure succeed, notwithstanding the .solidly estab¬ 
lished proofs of the existence of God inculcated in 
“Roman” schools. 

The “Kreuzzeitung” seems to assume that no 
proof is really sound if it has ever been disproved, 
whether logically or illogically. But that is not so. 
Moreover, the “Kreuzzeitung” describes a very odd 
circle in its reasoning. It expresses belief in the 
existence of God. Why? Because that existence is 
proclaimed in the Bible. But why believe the Bible? 
Because the Bible is the word of God. But how is 
that known ? How is it known even that God exists, 
until this knowledge is gained from the Bible ? 

E. Well, let us leave the “Kreuzzeitung’ ’ to get out 
of its circle. But even your conclusion is not entirely 
legitimate, for there would be a moral law just the 
same even if God did not exist. But, perhaps you 
would accuse agnostics of having thrown all sense of 
justice and duty overboard? 

F. Not so fast, my friend. Let us analyze more 
carefully your moral law without a God. To what 
lawgiver and what judge would it render us account¬ 
able? 

E. To the state. 

F. But what if I myself, for example, were at the 
head of the state? If I were an absolute monarch, 
I could then, like the king of Dahomey, put my people 
to death at the merest whim. 

E. But that would be contrary to reason ; a man 
ought to act rationally. I think with Kant that 
autonomous reason is man’s law. 

F. But by what right am I bound to obey my 
queen, Reason? She is not older than I, she is not 


THE MORAE I,AW WITHOUT A GOD. 43 

higher than I, she is not better than I. Neither has 
she created me, nor have I bound myself by contract 
to obey her. And besides (you are a lawyer), how 
can there possibly be any judicial relation of depend¬ 
ence between me and my reason, since we are funda¬ 
mentally one? 

E. If you demand a right for this dependence, 
then I, too, can put a question : What right has an 
extramundane God to require my submission? 

F. By a right that can be very simply stated: He 
has created you out of nothing; you are His property, 
just as a picture is the property of the artist who 
painted it, if the paint, brushes, and canvas are his. 

E. There is some truth in that; but isn’t it possible 
for me to establish a title for the judicial and moral 
order independently of God, the Creator and, as it 
were, the Monarch of the universe? I can say: “The 
law is the public conscience : immorality is doing 
what the state forbids. ’ ’ 

F. In that case you are forced to deny the exist¬ 
ence of every moral virtue in a colony in which a state 
government has not yet been organized. You must 
maintain that everything is morally lawful that is not 
directly forbidden by the state — for instance, to lie. 

E. But that would be opposed to the spirit of the 
state laws. 

F. Why trouble yourself in the least about the 
state and its laws? What is the state to you? Has it 
created you, or have you promised it obedience? 

E. Tet us suppose I have promised. 

F. That does not help the matter. Tor what ob¬ 
liges you to keep your promise? If there is a God 
who has created you, then He, of course, can force 


44 GOD THE FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE) of ADR JUSTICE. 

you to keep it; but if there is no God, why should you 
not be just as faithless to the state as individuals are 
to each other when they lie, deceive, steal, and mur¬ 
der? If there is a God who by His omniscience sees 
all things, thoughts as well as deeds, who by virtue of 
His justice weighs out exactly to each individual after 
death reward or punishment according to merit, and, 
by this very means, equalizes that which is often un¬ 
equal in man’s lot here below, — then there is suf¬ 
ficient sanction for good and evil. But if there is no 
God, then the state with all its judicial power and 
activity does not offer sufficient sanction ; neither are 
the penal code and the police force of themselves suf¬ 
ficient to punish, nor is the conferring of state honors 
an adequate reward. As soon as you deny God’s 
existence, it is all over with the state and social order. 
But one law then dominates, that of brute force — the 
universal “struggle for existence”, as is the case 
among tigers, snakes and hyenas. 

Nor are these mere speculations, but thoroughly 
practical truths. Of course, the belief in God will 
never be so entirely obliterated as to cease to exercise 
an influence on public morality; but the alternate 
weakening and strengthening of this belief produces 
a corresponding increase and decrease in crime. This 
was fully exemplified in Prussia during the “Kultur- 
kampf”. The war against positive Christianity, par¬ 
ticularly during Falk’s ministry, necessarily resulted 
in weakening the belief in God, especially among 
youth. And what are the criminal statistics ? In the 
six years from 1872 to 1877, the crimes among minors 
increased from 693 to 1,197, an d those of adults from 


NO ethics without beeief in existence of god. 45 

7,843 to 11,152. Investigations of criminal records 
from 1872 to 1878 show an increase as follows: 


1872 1878 

Insults to rulers... 1 : 134 1,994 

Lese-Majesty (resisting state authority).. 4,787 7,273 

Crimes and offenses against public order 5,360 10,724 

Counterfeiting.X 76 485 

Perjury. 59 1,194 

Libel.*.... 250 605 

Crimes and offenses against morality. 1,262 2,661 

Murder and manslaughter... 171 297 

Assault and battery.....— 9,906 19,135 

Extortion. 87 280 

Bankruptcy. 233 801 

Arson...-. 270 425 


You can verify these statistics in the accounts of 
the Privy Councilor of the Prussian Ministry of 
Justice, M. Starke, of whose book (“Crimes and 
Offenses in Prussia,” Berlin, 1884) I have availed 
myself. During the following years, crimes among 
minors again increased, from 13,313 in the year 1878 
to 19,353 i 11 the year 1881. If this continues we 
shall assuredly make great progress in “practical 
Christianity” ! 

E. And are these really supposed to be the fruits 
of the “Kulturkampf” ? 

F. Well, what other explanation can you give? 
In the mean time let us make a summary of our proofs 
as drawn from the moral order. There is a difference 
between good and evil, between right and wrong. 
This difference, and the obligation to do good and 
avoid evil, cannot be explained if we deny the exist¬ 
ence of a God who has created us. Therefore, there 












46 GOD THE FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE OF ALL JUSTICE. 


is a God: or you must give up all hope of explaining 
scientifically the difference between good and evil. 
Whatever might be added to this proof would only 
detract from its clearness. Meanwhile allow me to 
read you what Schopenhauer says on the subject: 

“All pantheism must finally suffer shipwreck on 
the imperative demands of ethics. If the world is a 
theophany, then everything done by man, and even 
by the brute beast, is equally divine and excellent; 
nothing can be condemned, and nothing praised: 
therefore, there can be no ethics.’’ 1 

I would like also to add a passagd from the “Welt- 
rathsel”; this will summarize the subject of our con¬ 
versations of the day before yesterday, yesterday, and 
to-day. 

“Our knowledge reaches to the essence of the 
divinity. God, as uncreated, absolute being, is the 
pure reality, is infinite. In the self-existing Godhead, 
being possesses the fundamental source in its essence: 
but that being, which flows from the essence of the 
essence, admits of no limitations; it embraces all con¬ 
ceivable perfections. In God is found all that we 
perceive perfect in created things, but without their 
limited peculiarities. God’s knowledge is truth in its 
essence; our knowledge is only a weak reflection 
of His. 

“God is infinitely happy and sufficient in Himself, 
because He possesses absolute truth, goodness, and 
beauty. God did not create the world that He might 
acquire what He did not possess; He created it out of 
goodness, with a free determination of His will, in 

1 Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille, II, p. 677. 


GOD is infinitely pfrffct. 47 

order to impart to creatures in a certain measure what 
He Himself possesses. 

“God’s creation is an image of the divine perfection, 
an expression of His immensity, His fullness; hence, 
the astonishing extension of the world in time and 
space; hence, the overpowering superabundance of 
the various beings and complex arrangements of 
nature, together with the greatest simplicity of means. 
But the world cannot be absolutely perfect, for God 
alone is absolute perfection; and because it is temporal 
and limited, it is burdened with imperfections and evil. 

“And because we acknowledge God, we acknowl¬ 
edge in our reason a divine, sacred norm, an inviolable 
moral law. This law comprises the commands by 
which the eternal wisdom of God regulates the vol¬ 
untary acts of rational creatures, and is made known 
to us by the light of reason. This moral law has its 
deepest foundation in our relation to the final purpose 
of creation ; and its contents are determined by the 
fundamental principle that we are bound in obedience 
to God to observe the order which He has established 
in us and in nature. The formal basis of all morality 
is, first, reverence for God, the absolute good; second¬ 
ly, respect for our reason, in which the divine will is 
expressed. Our primary duty, therefore, is to subject 
ourselves to the authority of God; our secondary duty, 
to develop and preserve in ourselves and in others the 
highest type of human dignity. ’ ’ 1 

This will be enough for to-day. However, I again 
beg you to pray. And I would also advise you to 
make a little examination of conscience, as to the 

1 Pesch, S. J. Weltrathsel, I, n. 407. 


48 GOD the: FUNDAMENTAL source: of ALL justice. 

causes that have obscured the belief in God which 
was certainly yours in childhood. Should you feel 
bound to ask pardon of God in this regard, I beg you 
to do so from your inmost heart humbly and sincerely. 



5- God the Source of the Highest Happiness. 

Edgar. I am glad to see you again, Father; your 
last discourse interested me greatly. But, indeed, if you 
have any more proofs of the existence of God to be¬ 
siege me with, I do not know what will become of my 
fortress of nature with all its bulwarks. 

Father. Are you not satisfied by the proofs already 
given ? 

E. My understanding is, perhaps; but the heart 
must have a share. While it may be impossible to 
explain the existence of the world with its motions, 
changes, and wonderful order, and especially the 
difference between good and evil, without a Creator, 
the source of all being, truth, and moral good, still 
this does not persuade me. On the one side I have 
the alluring pleasures of life, an unbounded freedom 
of thought and action; on the other, that is, as soon 
as I acknowledge God, I feel myself bound, robbed of 
my freedom, and everything appears gloomy. 

F. L,et us consider the matter a little more closely, 
both as regards the pretended delight and happiness 
of free thought, as you picture it, and the gloom in 
which you find yourself plunged by the recognition of 
God. Does atheism really make its votaries happy? 
And here I do not necessarily refer to its leading one 
finally to the eternal torments of hell; we will leave 
that out of the question. I only ask, does the atheistic 
philosophy of life ensure its votaries even earthly 
happiness ? 

4 


(49) 


50 GOD THE SOURCE OF THE HIGHEST HAPPINESS. 

Take, for instance, an atheist, rich, young, in good 
health, honored, and loved by every one, — is he 
really contented ? Is not the fact continually forced 
upon him, that each day brings him nearer and nearer 
to old age and death; that all this'good fortune will 
last only a few decades at the most? And does he not 
live in the painful uncertainty of the question: “What 
then?” 

Grant, however, that he has succeeded in so be¬ 
numbing his faculties, that he never thinks of death, 
— does his life really satisfy him? Do not even balls, 
concerts, theatres, and romances disgust him, as soon 
as the first charm of novelty has worn off? 

But remember that we have presupposed the most 
favorable conditions in order to find a happy atheist. 
Now take those men who, according to popular ideas, 
are not happy; take, for instance, the great masses of 
laborers, of the poor, the sick, the aged, and the feeble. 
What happiness do they find in their atheism ? At 
most, they have only the outlook furnished by Von 
Hartmann’s Nirvana, the thought that all will soon 
be over. A negative happiness, indeed! And even 
this they do not enjoy; for they can never, never be 
certain that, after all, there may not be a God and 
a hell. 

E. You are not entirely wrong, Father. But I 
should like to see, on the other hand, how you rear 
the edifice of theistic or Christian happiness. 

F. Good! Then first, it is necessary to hold that 
God includes in Himself the fulness of all perfection, 
and this because He is Being in its source, con¬ 
sequently in all its perfections. He is perfect as to 
space, that is, omnipresent, and, moreover, whole and 


ATHEISM AND HAPPINESS. 


51 


entire in every point; He is perfect as to time, that is, 
without beginning and without end, so that everything 
we call past, present, or future, is continually present 
to Him. He is perfect in knowledge, that is, all¬ 
knowing and all-wise; He is perfect in will, that is, 
all-holy; He is perfect in the execution of His will, 
that is, omnipotent. In short, whatever is perfect in 
the world, or whatever can be imagined as perfection, 
is found in God in its infinity. The existence of man 
in time and space, his knowledge, his virtue, his 
power — all this is as a drop in the ocean of similar 
perfection, which is found in God, or as a beam from 
the sun of perfection, which is God. Yet no, the 
comparison is inadequate; applied literally, it might 
even lead to pantheism. The ocean is diminished if 
but one drop be drawn from it; but God was not les¬ 
sened when He called this vast universe into existence. 
Therefore, we can better say: the perfections of man, 
and the world in general, are like very faint reflections 
of the corresponding perfections of God, of absolute 
being. 

Among the perfections found in created things, is 
their power of giving us pleasure, of making us 
happy — they are beautiful. The Alpine glow of the 
Swiss mountains fills us with a pleasurable astonish¬ 
ment; a Dante, a Michael Angelo, inspires us by his 
powerful creations ; we are carried away by a sym¬ 
phony of Beethoven. 

And here I draw the conclusion that this sort of 
perfection, the power of producing pleasure, is only 
a drop of that ocean of beauty, that beatific power 
which is found in God. From this ocean we shall 
drink through all eternity; we can never exhaust it, 
because it is infinite. 


52 GOD THE SOURCE OF THE HIGHEST HAPPINESS. 

Theatres, balls, and pleasure-trips, may for a time 
allay our thirst for happiness. But in what a beggarly 
way! After we have enjoyed them for a time, they pall 
upon us; we have sounded their depths and learned by 
experience that their pleasure-giving power is soon 
exhausted. 

Scientific studies, and artistic creations rank some¬ 
what higher, and furnish, it is true, a richer draught 
of happiness; but they, too, are only drops, and will 
also be exhausted, if not in communication with the 
ocean of blessedness, with the fountain-head of being, 
truth, and .beauty. Of the lower pleasures of life 
I will not speak; disenchantment and disgust follow 
close upon their heels. 

In God, on the other hand, is an inexhaustible 
ocean of beauty and beatific power; and this ocean of 
beauty and happiness we shall enjoy eternally, with 
the fullest certainty that we can never lose it, never 
exhaust it, — that it will always satisfy, but never 
satiate us. 

E. This happiness maybe great; but its fair hopes 
are realized only in the hereafter. 

F. Not only in the hereafter, since from it flows 
a great stream of happiness even into the present life. 
I have the certainty that after death I shall obtain this 
happiness, provided I fulfil the conditions made by 
God. In this anticipation, I pass the few years of 
my existence here upon earth. I accept with grati¬ 
tude whatever pleasure life offers, and when oppressed 
with adversity, I am comforted by the Ihought that 
this earthly exile will soon be over. Bven Death, the 
b&te noir of the atheist and the epicurean, is a friend 
who will lead me to an infinite ocean of beauty — to 


WHE)RE) IS TRUE) HAPPINESS TO BE) POUND? 53 

God. But my capacity for enjoying this happiness is 
a finite one, measured by the so-called lumen gloriae 
(the light of glory) which I receive in Heaven; and 
this lumen gloriae corresponds again in strength to the 
lumen gratiae , the sanctifying grace, which I acquire 
here upon earth. But the increase of this grace, God 
has left entirely in my own hands; every worthy re¬ 
ception of a sacrament, every action performed for the 
love of God, every suffering borne with resignation to 
His most holy will, increases this lumen gratiae. Tell 
this to a poor factory hand or an old, sick beggar, 
would it not make him happy, in spite of his priva¬ 
tions and sufferings? 

E. But where will you find people, especially 
among the poor and uneducated, whom you could 
convince of this ? 

F. Everywhere, in every population truly Christian. 
Go into the poor village of Eifel, for instance, and you 
will find my words fully confirmed. From youth up, 
the entire population is instructed in these truths, 
which are understood by the people, and held by them 
with a living, joyous faith. 

E. Well, if that be true, then I understand the 
words: “The Gospel, the good tidings, is preached to 
the poor. ’ ’ I wonder if an atheistic university profes¬ 
sor can be found, who has any idea of this ! It was 
certainly new to me until I came here among these 
poor Sisters of Charity, where, it seems to me, I see 
a happiness such as you have described. 

F. I should like to draw still another conclusion 
from the foregoing: Not only does the Christian philo¬ 
sophy of life make us happier, but Christianity, the 
true system, is the very opposite of the atheistic or 


54 GOD the source of the highest happiness. 

monistic system (as it is euphemistically called). To 
recognize nothing but a world without God, is to 
admit the most terrible discord, in the social order. 
Under such conditions the world is a powerful engine, 
which in the course of time will grind us to atoms 
without our being able to help ourselves, as David 
Strauss in his atheism despairingly acknowledges. 
There is no Providence. To the wretched, the sick, 
the crushed, nothing is left but envy, hatred, and 
despair. And is this chaos supposed to have evolved 
itself out of nothing, out of eternal vacuum by virtue 
of an intrinsic, absolute necessity? Whoever wants 
to believe this is welcome to do so ! When one be¬ 
lieves in God, the rewarder of good, the avenger of 
evil, all this discord disappears; a harmony of a higher 
order can at once be observed; the history of the 
world becomes a great, uniform drama, satisfying the 
mind and the heart —- a drama, of which the Fast' 
Judgment forms the final act, where the inequalities of 
our earthly life are equalized, and each one receives 
according to his merits. With Christianity, theism, 
there is light and clearness; with atheism, there are 
deceit and fraud, leagued together to plunge the mind 
of man into gloom, to drive him in despair to take 
refuge in the low enjoyments of this world, as illus¬ 
trated in Faust, for instance, where the victim is 
estranged from God, his Creator and Ford, separated 
from his object and end, from the only source whence 
true happiness flows. 

Be convinced, you will never, never find rest, 
peace, and true, lasting happiness except in childlike, 
humble faith in God, your Father in Heaven! 


6. Miracles. 


Edgar. In our last conversation you tried to con¬ 
vince me that belief in God brought harmony into the 
universe, that it does away with the discord which, 
without this belief, would prevail in the social order. 

However, I find a certain lack of harmony, an 
arbitrariness in almost all the theist religions,—in 
Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, or whatever 
else they may be called; for, as a rule, they.are based 
more or less on miracles. “The miracle is faith’s 
favorite child. ’ ’ 

In contrast, the monistic, or, if you will, the 
atheistic view of the world, appears to me more 
reasonable; it denies such deviations from nature, and 
gives without exception full force to her laws. 

Father. Do you consider it a discord in the judicial 
order when a monarch pardons a criminal ? 

E. Ah, I see the drift of your comparison. 

F. It will show that exceptions to the laws, far 
from giving rise to discords, are sometimes the har¬ 
monious application of a higher law. 

Murder, for instance, is followed by capital punish¬ 
ment. Suppose some one has committed this crime, 
and is judicially condemned to death. Attending the 
deed, however, are extraordinary circumstances which, 
in this case, make the punishment appear too severe; 
the king, therefore, pardons the murderer. Is this 
discord ? 


(55) 


56 


MIRACI.KS. 


E. Of course the law gives the head of the state 
the right to pardon. But too frequent pardoning is 
likewise an evil. 

F. I,et us apply this to our argument. A person 
stabbed in the heart dies, according to the general 
laws of nature; God may, however, through His 
mercy preserve the life of one thus wounded. Do you 
believe that He who created not merely the heart, but 
the whole man, is powerless to close the wound and 
thus avert death ? 

E. Certainly He has the power; but by this very 
act He disturbs the course of natural laws. 

F. Just as much and as little as the monarch dis¬ 
turbs the order of justice, when in mercy he pardons 
the criminal. If higher motives transform the ap¬ 
parent discord into harmony in the latter case, the 
same will hold true in the former. 

E. Nevertheless, miracles are possible only on 
condition that we assume the existence of a personal 
God, an Intelligence that has created the world, and 
holds it, so to speak, constantly in His hand. On the 
contrary, if everything has evolved itself without God 
out of eternal matter according to eternal laws, then 
a miracle is an absurdity. 

F. Ah, there I agree with you perfectly. And not 
only that, but I will turn the thought that you have 
just expressed, into a new argument for the existence 
of God. If in the whole duration of the world but 
one miracle has really taken place, then there is a 
personal God and Creator, and your monism is proved 
a contradiction to actual facts. 

E. That is a singular conclusion, but logical. Can 
God then really by a miracle overturn the natural 
laws He has once established ? 


the possibility of miracles. 57 

F. Certainly not. But your postulate is false, in¬ 
asmuch as you imply that God has established a law 
of nature to this effect: “Every man who has been 
stabbed in the heart must die.” But were you to 
clothe in words this law of nature as it really exists, it 
would run thus: “According to the natural course of 
things, man dies if the heart be wounded.” However 
if God in a supernatural manner prevents death, then 
this does not imply any contradiction whatever with 
this natural law. I11 fact, every law of nature is con¬ 
ditional, since it contains in itself the supposition that 
God does not interfere in an extraordinary manner. 

E. But experience bears witness against miracles. 

F. You are wrong, my friend . Your personal ex¬ 
perience, perhaps, bears witness against miracles, or 
rather does not bear witness to them; but this is not 
the case with universal experience. You must be on 
your guard, or you will be open to the charge: 

“Unless you weigh, no weight has it for you: 

Unless you coin, no coin for you rings true.” 1 

Infidel physiologists, relying on their own re¬ 
stricted experience, might perhaps establish the 
principle that a human being could never have origi¬ 
nated without a human being for a father. They hope 
thus to do away with the fundamental doctrine of 
Christianity, the Incarnation of God, and His birth 
of a virgin. But these physiologists only blunder in 
logic by using inapplicable inductive methods, whose 
conclusions overleap the premises. Observing that 
a certain condition obtains in a thousand cases, they 
immediately generalize, regardless of logic, that this 

1 “Was ihr nicht wagt, hat fur euch kein Gewicht, 

Was ihr nicht pragt, meint ihr, das gelte nicht.” 


58 


MIRACIyKS. 


condition is essential in all cases. That such a con¬ 
clusion is unwarranted, is clear from the fact that 
natural science itself brands it as false; for, according 
to science, human beings did not exist previous to a 
certain period. Now, whether the first man was 
created by God, as Christianity teaches, or, according 
to Carl Vogt, evolved from a lower animal, in either 
case the first man did not have a man for a father, 
otherwise he would not have been the first man. 

E. How unfortunate that Mr. Vogt is not here to 
defend himself L 

F . To make the absurdity of such a mode of pro¬ 
ceeding still more striking, let us draw a comparison 
from history. A missionary who enjoyed great 
authority with an Indian prince, told him on one 
occasion among other things, that in Europe the water 
sometimes became so hard that persons could travel 
on it. From that moment he forfeited the confidence 
of the prince. To the Indian who sees in his tropical 
climate only water, but never ice, or snow, such an 
assertion seemed an open falsehood, since it was in 
manifest contradiction with his entire experience. 

So it is with these physiologists who, on the ground 
of their supposed experience, deny the creation of the 
first man, the miraculous incarnation of God, and in 
general all miracles. Their judgments are formed in 
precisely the same way as that of the Indian prince. 
To assert without sufficient reason that a miracle had 
taken place would, indeed, be illogical; but it is quite 
as illogical and stupid either to reject at the outset 
every miracle without testing it, or to deny its 
possibility. 

E. With the existence of a personal God, I must, 


WHAT PURPOSE DO MIRACEES SERVE ? 59 

of course, admit the physical possibility of miracles; 
but this does not show their moral possibility. What 
purpose do they serve ? 

F. What purpose? Is it not a sufficient purpose 
to help the unfortunate? Is God, do you think, a 
heartless overseer of a factory, without compassion for 
the sufferings of his people, when they require an 
exception from the general regulations of the es¬ 
tablishment ? 

Let me read you the evangelists’ account of a few 
of Christ’s miracles, and you will see what end God 
has in view when He works them. Saint Luke, for 
instance, relates of our divine Lord: “And it came to 
pass afterwards, that he went into a city that is called 
Naim; and there went with him his disciples, and a 
great multitude. And when he came nigh to the gate 
of the city, behold a dead man was carried out, the 
only son of his mother; and she was a widow: and a 
great multitude of the city was with her. 

“Whom when the Lord had seen, being moved 
with mercy towards her, he said to her: Weep not. And 
he came near and touched the bier. And they that 
carried it, stood still. And he said : Young man, 
I say to thee, arise ! And he that was. dead, sat up, 
and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother. 

“And there came a fear on them all: and they 
glorified God, saying: A great prophet is arisen among 
us: and God hath visited his people. And this rumor 
of him went forth throughout all Judea, and through¬ 
out all the country round about. ’ ’ 1 

Had this miracle, let me ask you, no definite pur¬ 
pose? St. Matthew relates another. Jesus had re- 


1 St. Euke, VII, 11, 17. 


6 o 


MIRACLES. 


tired into solitude.. “And the multitudes having 
heard of it, followed him on foot out of the cities. 
And he coming forth saw a great multitude, and had 
compassion on them, and healed their sick. 

“And when it was evening, his disciples came to 
him, saying: This is a desert place, and the hour is 
now past: send away the multitudes, that going into 
the towns, they may buy themselves victuals. But 
Jesus said to them : They have no need to go: give 
you them to eat. They answered him: We have not 
here but five loaves and two fishes. He said to them: 
Bring them hither to me. 

“And when he had commanded the multitudes to 
sit down upon the grass, he took the five loaves and 
the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, 
and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and 
the disciples to the multitudes. And they did all eat, 
and were filled. And they took up what remained, 
twelve baskets full of fragments. And the number 
that did eat was five thousand besides women and 
children. ’ ’ 1 

Had this miracle no purpo.se? Saint Matthew 
gives the following account of another. Shortly before 
his Passion, Jesus withdrew from Jericho to Jerusalem. 
“And behold two blind men sitting by the way side, 
heard that Jesus passed by, and they cried out, say¬ 
ing: O Lord, thou son of David, have mercy on us! 
And the multitude rebuked them that they should 
hold their peace. And they cried out the more, say¬ 
ing: O Lord, thou son of David, have mercy on us! 

“And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said: 
What will ye that I do to you? And they said to him: 


1 St. Matt., XIV, 13, 21. 


MIRACIyKS. TKSTIFY TO CHRIST’S DIVINE MISSION. 61 

Iyord, that our eyes may be opened. And Jesus hav¬ 
ing compassion on them, touched their eyes. And 
immediately they saw, and followed him. ’' 1 

Saint Mark relates another incident: Jesus came to 
the land of Genesareth. “And when they had passed 
over, they came into the land of Genesareth, and set 
to the shore. And when they were gone out of the 
ship, immediately they knew him : And running 
through that whole country, they began to carry about 
in beds those that were sick, where they heard he 
was. And whithersoever he entered, into towns or 
into villages or cities, they laid the sick in the streets, 
and besought him that they might touch but the hem 
of his garment: and as many as touched him were 
made whole.” 2 

E. But here allow me to interrupt you, Rev. 
Father; you are actually strengthening my objection. 
If it is a sufficient purpose to comfort the widowed, 
to feed the hungry, to give sight to the blind, and to 
heal the lame, then good-by to the laws- of nature. 
Send your Saviour to Berlin, New York, or Rondon; 
there he will have enough to occupy him with funeral 
processions, multiplying loaves, and healing the multi¬ 
tudes of crippled and sick. If for such ends the laws 
of nature are to be suspended, he might put a notice 
in the “Kreuzzeitung”, or in the “Times”, that from 
now on, there will be only an occasional funeral, only 
now and then a hungry individual. 

F. Do not treat this too lightly, my friend. Such 
expressions prove how little you know of the subject. 
The purpose of these miracles was not merely to miti- 

1 St. Matt., XX, 30, 34. 

2 St. Mark, VI, 53, 56. 


62 


MIRACLES. 


gate the sufferings of individuals, but by these benefits 
to testify to the divine mission of the one who per¬ 
formed them. To make this quite clear to you, I will 
read you the account of another miracle — this time 
from St. John : “Now there was a certain sick man, 
named Tazarus, of Bethania, of the town of Mary and 
Martha his sister. (And Mary was she that anointed 
the Tord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her 
hair: whose brother Tazarus was sick.) 

“His sisters, therefore, sent to him, saying: Tord, 
behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. And Jesus 
hearing it, said to them : This sickness is not unto 
death, but for the glory of God: that the son of God 
may be glorified by it. 

“Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, 
and Tazarus. When he had heard, therefore, that he 
was sick, he still remained in the same place two 
days. Then after that, he said to his disciples : Tet 
us go into Judea again. The disciples said to him: 
Rabbi, the Jews but now sought to stone thee: and 
goest thou thither again? Jesus answered: Are there 
not twelve hours of the day? If a man walk in the 
day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of 
this world: But if he walk in the night, he stumbleth, 
because the light is not in him. These things he said; 
and after that he said to them: Tazarus, our friend, 
sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. 
His disciples therefore said: Tord, if he sleep, he shall 
do well. But Jesus spoke of his death ; and they 
thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep. Then, 
therefore, Jesus said to them plainly: Tazarus is dead. 
And I am glad, for your sakes, that I was not there, 
that you may believe: but let us go to him. Thomas, 


THK RAISING OF RAZARUS FROM THF DFAD. 63 

therefore, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow- 
disciples: Let us also go, that we may die with him. 

“Jesus, therefore, came, and found that he had been 
four days already in the grave. 

“(Now Bethania was near Jerusalem, about fifteen 
furlongs off.) And many of the Jews had come to 
Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their 
brother. Martha, therefore, as soon as she heard that 
Jesus was come, went to meet him: but Mary sat at 
home. Martha therefore said to Jesus: Lord, if thou 
hadst been here, my brother had not died: But now 
also I know that whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, 
God will give thee. Jesus said to her: Thy brother 
shall rise again. Martha saith to him: I know that 
he shall rise again in the resurrection of the last day. 
Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: 
he that believetli in me, although he be dead, shall 
live: And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, 
shall not die forever. Believest thou this? She saith 
to him : Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art 
Christ, the Son of the living God, who art come into 
this world. 

“And when she had said these things, she went, 
and called her sister Mary secretly, saying: The 
master is come, and calleth for thee. She, as .soon as 
she heard this, riseth quickly and cometh to him. 
For Jesus w T as not yet come into the town: but he was 
still in that place wdiere Martha had met him. 

“The Jews, therefore, who were with her in the 
house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary that 
she rose up speedily and went out, followed her, say¬ 
ing: She goeth to the grave to weep there. 

“When Mar} r , therefore, was come where Jesus 





















MIRACEES PRESUPPOSE A PERSONAE CREATOR. 65 

done. The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees, 
gathered a council, and said: What do we, for this 
man doth many miracles? If we let him alone so, all 
will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and 
take away our place and nation. ” 1 

Such is the account in the Gospel of the resurrec¬ 
tion of Tazarus. 

Pardon me, I am afraid I have fatigued you with 
this long account. However, it is well for you to hear 
the plain gospel narrative, which in its simplicity so 
clearly bears the stamp of truth. At any rate, you 
will no longer deny that miracles may have a reason¬ 
able end; first, to give supernatural help to those un¬ 
fortunate beings, for whom natural means are of no 
avail; and secondly, to confirm a divine teacher and 
founder of religion as such. For, given a personal 
God, nothing is more natural than that He should 
enter into intercourse with His rational creatures; and 
when He sends a prophet to bring about this inter¬ 
course, the miracle is a means of verification of his 
mission, so natural and self-evident, that after the re¬ 
surrection of Tazarus, even the Pharisees exclaimed: 
“What do we, for this man doth many miracles? If 
we let him alone so, all will believe in him.” 

E. I am afraid, Father, that I must acknowledge 
myself caught. For, once I have admitted the ex¬ 
istence of a personal God and Creator, I do not see 
how I can deny the possibility of miracles. 

F. Both are in fact intimately connected; and the 
aversion for miracles manifested by many of the mod¬ 
ern so-called cultured and half-cultured, is based ulti¬ 
mately on their atheism. Hence I think I am right 

1 St. John, XI, 1, 48. 

5 


66 


MIRACLES. 


in saying, that not only the possibility of miracles 
results from the existence of a personal God, but, 
inversely, that a single miracle, fully proved, suffices 
to place the existence of God beyond doubt. For by 
miracles I mean such actions as surpass the power of 
man, and in general, the power of all created beings; 
such actions, therefore, as are explained only by the 
activity of a personal, extramundane God. The re¬ 
surrection of the dead, for instance, can never be 
explained from the standpoint of atheism, but only 
from the standpoint in which a personal, extramun¬ 
dane God is accepted. 

E. Very well, as far as I am concerned. But, Rev. 
Father, you seem to have found in miracles the proof 
not only of the existence of God, but also of the gen¬ 
uineness of religion, that is, of its divine foundation. 
That is a great salto. How do you arrive at that 
point ? The matter is very obscure to me. 

F. I will try to make it clear to you. L,et us keep 
to the example of the resurrection from the dead, the 
miracle we have just been considering. To express it 
briefly. Jesus of Nazareth is led, as we saw above, by 
Martha and Mary Magdalene to the grave of Tazarus: 
Tazarus has been dead four days. Jesus, as we know, 
has given himself out to be a divine teacher. Now, 
how is He to substantiate this assertion ? For He can- 

. not expect us to believe His doctrines without testi¬ 
mony. Very well. The opportunity for this testimony 
is offered before the sealed tomb of Tazarus. For if 
there were question of only an apparent death, 1 Jesus, 

1 We quote the following from an expanded treatment 
of this subject found in Hammerstein’s “Christenthum”: 

“Major von F. Might not Fazarus have been in a trance? 


a “natural” explanation. 


67 


unless sent by God, could not have known anything 
of it. He prays to His Heavenly Father: “Because'of 
the people who stand about have I said it; that they 
may believe that thou hast' sent me. When he had 
said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Fazarus, 
come forth. ’ ’ And immediately the dead came forth. 
He was restored to life. By what power'? Through 
the omnipotence of the Creator. For no one but the 
Creator can bring back the dead to life. God answered 
the prayer uttered by Jesus Christ, so that the people 

Professor X. Ah! Another “natural” explanation! But 
this will not suffice, and for two reasons. If such an explana¬ 
tion were at all possible, why did not the Pharisees seize on 
it? Why did they openly acknowledge, “This man works 
many miracles” ? 

But suppose Lazarus was only apparently dead, and that 
Jesus knew it; then Jesus obtained credence by cheating the 
bystanders, like an ordinary juggler. The modern unbeliever 
does not recoil from such a conclusion. But there remains 
this problem for him to solve: How could Jesus have known, 
without supernatural enlightment, that Lazarus was only ap¬ 
parently dead ? How could He know it, when He waited 
with His disciples outside Judea? (“When He had heard, 
therefore, that Lazarus was sick, He still remained in the 
same place two days. Then after that He said to His dis¬ 
ciples: Let us go intojudea again.”—St.John XI, 6, 7.) How 
could He know that Lazarus, who had been already four days 
in the grave, had not died during these four days, even though 
he had been only in a trance when buried ? How could He 
know that this apparently dead man would be able to hear 
just at the moment when He called out Lazarus ? If He did 
not know all this, and know it beyond doubt, then Jesus, by 
His words and His solemn prelude, placed Himself in im¬ 
minent danger of appearing before the people in the ridicu¬ 
lous guise of a False Prophet. And if you do not shrink 
before these absurdities, kindly explain to me how a man 
bound hand and foot could come forth out of a grave!” — See 
Hammerstein’s “Das Christenthum” — pp. 42, 43. 


68 


MIRACLES. 


might believe He had been sent by God. The miracle 
was wrought for Jesus in compliance with His prayer. 
Is it even conceivable that God would manifest His 
power by an act which surpasses all human strength, 
and which can come only from the Creator, in order 
to confirm the mission of a false prophet, or a 
hypocrite ? 

E. No, certainly not; if the miracle has taken 
place beyond a doubt, if he who performed it, per¬ 
formed it with the determined purpose of proving his 
divine mission, then I must recognize in a miracle 
God’s seal of his divine mission. 

F. Well then, I shall relate you another miracle 
from the Sacred Scriptures, thus giving you further 
material for criticism. It is the giving sight to a man 
born blind. I beg you to observe, first, how the 
Pharisees made every effort- to deny the miracle, al¬ 
though without success; secondly, how the miracle 
wrought in this case was looked upon as the confirma¬ 
tion of the mission of Him who performed it; and 
thirdly, that Jesus declared himself on this occasion to 
be the Son of God. St. John narrates the event, which 
occurred in Jerusalem, as follows: “And Jesus passing 
by saw a man who was blind from his birth. And his 
disciples asked him : Rabbi, who hath Sinned,~ this 
man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? 
Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his 
parents; but that the works of God should be made 
manifest in him. I must work the works of him that 
sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no 
man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am 
the light of the world. 

“When he had said these things, he spat on the 


healing of thf man born brind. 69 

ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the 
clay upon his eyes, and said to him: Go, wash in the 
pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. 

“He went, therefore, and washed, and he came 
seeing. 

“The neighbors, therefore, and they who had seen 
him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he 
that sat and begged? Some said: This is he. But 
others said: No, but he is like him. But he said: 
I am he. 

“They said therefore to him : How were thy eyes 
opened ? He answered: Tfiat man that is called Jesus 
made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: 
Go, to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, 
I washed, and I see. And they said to him: 'Where 
is he? He saith: I know not. 

“They bring him that had been blind to the Phari¬ 
sees. Now it was the Sabbath, when Jesus made the 
clay, and opened his eyes. Again, therefore, the 
Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. 
But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and 
I washed, and I see. Some, therefore, of the Pharisees 
said: This man is not of God who keepeth not the 
Sabbath. But others said: How can a man that is a 
sinner do such miracles ? And there was a division 
among them. 

“They say, therefore, to the blind man again: 
What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes ? 
And he said: He is a prophet. 

“The Jews then did not believe concerning him, 
that he had been blind, and had received his sight, 
until they called the parents of him that had received 
his sight. And asked them, saying: Is this your son, 


70 MIRACI<KS. 

who you say was born blind ? How doth he now see ? 

“His parents answered them, and said: We know 
that this is our son, and that he was born blind: But 
how he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened 
his eyes, we know not: ask himself; he is of age, let 
him speak for himself. These things his parents said, 
because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already 
agreed among themselves, that if any man should con¬ 
fess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the 
synagogue. Therefore did his parents say: He is of 
age, ask him. 

“They therefore called the man again that had 
been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We 
know that this man is a sinner. He said therefore to 
them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, 
that whereas I was blind, now I see. 

“They said then to him: What did he to thee? 
How did he open thy eyes? He answered them: I 
have told you already, and you have heard: why 
would you hear it again ? Will you also become his 
disciples ? 

“They reviled him therefore, and said: Be thou his 
disciple; but we are the disciples of Moses. We know 
that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we know 
not from whence he is. 

‘ ‘The man answered and said to them: Why, herein 
is a wonderful thing, that you know not from whence 
he is, and he hath opened my eyes. Now we know 
that God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a 
server of God, and doth his will, him he heareth. 
From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, 
that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind. 
Unless this man were of God, he could not do any 
thing. 


HEADING OF THK MAN BORN BUND. 71 

“They answered, and .said to him: Thou wast 
wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And 
they cast him out. -** 

“Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when 
he had found him, he said to him : Dost thou believe 
in the Son of God? He answered, and said: Who is 
he, Tord, that I may. believe in him ? And Jesus said 
to him: Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that 
talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, L,ord. 
And falling down, he adored him.” 1 

1 St. John, IX, 1, 38. — For instances of miracles in 
modern times see Hammerstein’s “Christenthum”, pp. 235 
—273. 



II. 


JESUS CHRIST. 


i. The Drama of the World’s History. 

Letter of Father H. 

My dear friend, our evening conversations having 
been interrupted for the present by my departure, I 
will gladly continue our discussion by letter. I am 
delighted that you are now firmly convinced of the 
existence of God, your Creator, Lord, and Father in 
heaven, and that you pray to Him. As you go on, 
you will see more and more how necessary prayer is. 

You desire a more detailed statement of the drama 
of the world’s history, to which I have frequently 
made an allusion. Very well, I shall sketch it 
briefly. 

The earth lay in virginal beauty. Various creative 
acts of God, and vast periods of development had 
been necessary before the abode of man, the theatre of 
his activity, was fitted up. Now, however, it was 
perfected; the whole glorious structure with its clim¬ 
ate variations, its Alps and snow-fields, its plants and 
animals, its subterranean treasures of coal and iron, 
(to be opened up to man at a later period), formed a 
magnificent monument to the infinite wisdom and 
power of the Creator. One thing, however, was still 

(72) 



CREATION.—THE FARE. 


73 


wanting; Creation needed a king, — the palace, a 
L,ord. Then God created to His own image and like¬ 
ness, man, the only being in the whole visible world 
endowed with understanding and free will. 

This took place about six or seven thousand years 
ago; such, at least, is the time determined from the 
chronological account in the Sacred Scriptures. The 
human race cannot, therefore, be very much older, 
because the historical monuments steadily decrease in 
number from 1000 B. C. to 2000 B. C., when they 
become less and less authentic, and finally disappear. 

God’s motive in the creation of man was love, 
which urged Him to give existence to a being who 
could recognize and honor Him, and return His love, 
and find in this recognition and love of his Creator, 
his own happiness. It was the design of God that 
man should love and serve Him in full freedom; God 
would not force him to participate in His blessedness; 
man was himself to merit this eternal reward by 
voluntary service of His Creator. Nevertheless, a sin 
of disobedience would result in the withdrawal of this 
happiness, and, according to the magnitude of man’s 
guilt, even further misfortune was threatened. As 
man is a social being, the first man, the progenitor of 
the human race, was destined by God to be the 
representative of his whole posterity in such a manner 
that his merits and his guilt, his reward and his 
punishment, should equally be entailed on his poster¬ 
ity. In the matter of guilt and punishment, man 
was, in case of disobedience, to forfeit at least super¬ 
natural, sanctifying grace, which had been imparted 
to him for himself and his entire race. 

This disobedience unfortunately became a reality. 


74 THF DRAMA OF THF WORRD’S HISTORY. 

Adam did not stand the test, and the threatened 
punishment was inflicted. The first act in the world’s 
great drama was completed. 

Why, you may ask, did not God prevent this sad 
result? Perhaps because He wished to make His 
incomprehensible mercy shine out more brilliantly; at 
least, this may be concluded from the following facts. 

Immediately after the decree of punishment, the 
Creator’s magnificent designs of reconciliation began 
to take form like a distant aurora. To Satan, to the 
serpent who had seduced man, He said, “I will put 
enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed, 
and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou 
shalt lie in wait for her heel.” 1 

And in what was this reconciliation to consist? 
Was it to take place without any further atonement? 
This might have been the case ; but the majesty of 
God would assume grander proportions, and the 
enormity of the offense against Him be made more 
apparent, if a reparation were made, and, moreover, a 
complete reparation. But who was to make it? Any 
satisfaction offered by the fallen human race would 
have been inadequate; for the offense was, in a certain 
measure, infinite, and man’s reparation would be but 
finite. 

Then God conceived the most wonderful mystery 
of His love. He Himself would become man, would 
become the son of a woman, would, in His own 
divine person, raise human nature to the divine. 
Human nature would thus be enabled to suffer, to 
make the atonement; but the dignity of the divine 
person should impart to the atonement an infinite 

1 Gen. Ill, 15. 


REDEMPTION. 


75 


value. He would be born of a virgin, so that, as the 
seed of woman, He might crush the serpent’s head. 
This would solve the difficulty brought about by the 
sin of Adam. 

Meanwhile the human race sank lower and lower; 
but the promise of the redemption was renewed and 
became more distinct. The indications of the Messiah 
were constantly restricted to narrower limits; first to 
the posterity of Noah, then to the chosen people, 
whom God Himself prepared, as it were, to be the 
cradle of the Messiah; finally, to the house of King 
David, who reigned about the year 1000 before Christ. 
Three centuries later, Isaias prophesied the Messiah’s 
birth of a virgin, and pictured the man of sorrows even 
to the minutest details. About the same time the 
prophet Micheas announced in the following words 
that He should come from Bethlehem: “And thou, 
Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the 
thousands of Judea; out of thee shall he come forth 
unto me, that is to be the ruler of Israel, and his 
going forth is from the beginning, from the days of 
eternity.” (Micheas, V, 2.) Eater the prophet 
Malachias indicated the limit of the time of His 
appearance by prophesying that He should enter the 
temple, subsequently destroyed by Titus (A. D. 70). 

We now come to the chief act in the great drama — 
the Incarnation of God, the birth of the Redeemer. 
Here, however, I must be more explicit, and give you 
the account of the gospels verbatim ; for you yourself 
ought to feel, taste, and prove whether Christianity 
rests upon fancies like the mythologies of the ancient 
heathen world, or upon historical truth delivered in 
unquestionably historical time by contemporaries, and 


76 THE DRAMA OF THE WORED’S HISTORY. 

for the most part related quite simply by eye-wit¬ 
nesses. 

The time appointed by the prophets in the Old 
Testament had come. “And the angel Gabriel was 
sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 
to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, 
of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was 
Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: 
Hail, full of grace, the Ford is with thee : blessed art 
thou among women! 

“Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, 
and thought within herself what manner of salutation 
this should be. And the angel said to her : Fear not, 
Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold 
thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring 
forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He 
shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most 
High ; and the Ford God shall give unto him the 
throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the 
house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there 
shall be no end. 

“And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be 
done, because I know not man? And the angel 
answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come 
upon thee, and the power of the most High shall 
overshadow thee; and therefore also the Holy which 
shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God . . . 
And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Ford, be 
it done to me according to thy word. And the angel 
departed from her. ’ ’ — 1 

“And it came to pass .... that there went out a 
decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world 


1 St. Euke I, 26, 38. 


THE} BIRTH OF THF REDEEMER. Ijj 

should be enrolled. This enrolling was first made by 
Cyrinus, the governor of Syria. 

“And all went to be enrolled, every one into his 
own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee out 
of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of 
David, which is called Bethlehem : because he was of 
the house and family of David, to be enrolled with 
his espoused wife, who was with child. 

“And it came to pass, that when they were there, 
her days were accomplished, that she should be 
delivered. And she brought forth her first-born son, 
and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid 
him in a manger ; because there was no room for them 
in the inn. 

“And there were in the same country shepherds 
watching, and keeping the night-watches over their 
flocks. And behold an angel of the Ford stood by 
them, and the brightness of God shone round about 
them; and they feared with a great fear. And the 
angel said to them : Fear not; for behold I bring you 
good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the 
people : For this day is born to you a Saviour, who is 
Christ the Ford, in the city of David. And this shall 
be sign unto you: you shall find the infant wrapped 
in swaddling-clothes, and laid in a manger. 

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multi¬ 
tude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: 
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to 
men of good-will. ’ ’ 2 

“When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of 
Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, there came 
wise men from the Bast to Jerusalem, saying, Where 


2 St. Take, II, 1, 14. 


78 THE DRAMA OF THE WORDD’S HISTORY. 

is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have 
seen his star in the Bast, and are come to adore him. 

“And King Herod hearing this, was troubled, and 
all Jerusalem with him. And assembling together all 
the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he in¬ 
quired of them where Christ should be born. But 
* they said to him : In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is 
written by the prophet: And thou Bethlehem the land 
(of the tribe) of Juda art not the least among the 
princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the 
captain that shall rule my people Israel. 

“Then Herod privately calling the wise men 
learned diligently of them the time of the star, which 
appeared to them. And sending them into Bethlehem, 
said: Go and diligently inquire after the child; and 
when you have found him, bring me word again, that 
I also may come and adore him. 

“Who having heard the king, went their way; 
and behold the star they had seen in the Bast, went 
before them, until it came and stood over where the 
child was. And seeing the star they rejoiced with 
exceeding great joy. And entering into the house, 
they found the child with Mary his Mother, and 
falling down they adored him; and opening their 
treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense 
and myrrh. 

“And having'received an answer in sleep that they 
should not return to Herod, they went back another 
way into their country. ’ ’ 1 

The holy family now fled into Bgypt, to escape the 
persecution of Herod. When the danger was over, 
they returned, and took up their abode in Nazareth. 


1 St. Matt., II, 1, 12. 



ST. JOHN’S TESTIMONY. 


79 


There Jesus grew up. In the meantime John the 
Baptist had also grown to manhood, and was preach¬ 
ing penance to the people. 

“And as the people was of one opinion, and all 
were thinking in their hearts of John, that perhaps he 
might be the Christ; John answered, saying unto all: 
I indeed baptize you with water ; but there shall come 
one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am 
not worthy to loose; he shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost, and with fire . 1 ” 

“And it came to pass; in those days Jesus came 
from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John 
in the Jordan. And forthwith coming up out of the 
water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit as a 
dove descending, and remaining on him. And there 
came a voice from heaven : Thou art my beloved Son ; 
in thee I am well pleased. ’ ’ 2 

Now after Jesus had passed forty days in the 
desert, we read further, how John the Baptist saw 
Him coming, and said: “Behold the L,amb of God, 
behold him who taketh away the sins of the world ! . . . 
I saw the Spirit coming down as a dove from heaven, 
and he remained upon him. And I knew him not ; 
but he, who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: 
He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending 
and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with 
the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and I gave testimony, 
that this is the Son of God. 

“The next day again John stood, and two of his 
disciples. And beholding Jesus walking, he saith: 
Behold the Tamb of God. And the two disciples 

1 St. Luke, III, 15, 16. 

2 St. Mark, I, 9, 11. Cf. St. Matt., Ill, 16; St. Luke, 
III, 21. 


80 THE) DRAMA OP THp WORLD’S HISTORY. 

heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus 
turning, and seeing them following him, saith to 
them: What seek ye? Who said to him, Rabbi, 
(which is to say, being interpreted, Master) where 
dwellest thou ? He saith to them : Come and see. 
They came, and saw where he abode, and they stayed 
with him that day : now it was about the tenth hour. 
And Andrew the brother of Simon Peter was one of 
the two who had heard of John, and followed him. 
He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him : 
We have found the Messias; (which ,is, being inter¬ 
preted, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. 
And Jesus looking upon him, said : Thou art Simon, 
the son of Jona : Thou shalt be called Cephas ; which 
is interpreted, Peter (the rock).” 1 

Christ now began His public teaching. During 
one of the apostolic missions, which He undertook for 
this end, the well-known conversation with the Sam¬ 
aritan woman took place at Jacob’s well. Christ 
declared to the woman: “But the hour cometh, and 
now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father 
in spirit and in truth.” The woman answered: “I 
know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ); 
therefore when he income, he will tell us all things. 
Jesus saith to her: I am he, — who am speaking 
with thee. ’ ’ 2 

Certainly Christ could not have expressed more 
plainly than in these words His -divine mission as the 
Messiah, as the expected teacher and founder of a 
religion. Something similar may be found in the 
following narration: 

1 St. John, I, 29, 42. 

2 St. John, IV, 23, 26. 



PUBLIC UFF—CHOICE OF APOSTILS. 81 

“And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought 
up ; and he went into the synagogue, according to his 
custom, on the sabbath day; and he rose up to read. 
And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered unto 
him. And as he unfolded the book, he found the 
place where it was written : The spirit of the Lord is 
upon me: wherefore he hath anointed me, to preach 
the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me, to heal the 
contrite of heart, to preach deliverance to the captives, 
and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are 
bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, 
and the day of reward. 

“And when he had folded the book, he restored it 
to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all in 
the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to 
say to them : This day is fulfilled this scripture in 
your ears. ’ ’ 1 

Jesus had gradually collected about Him a number 
of disciples, who accompanied Him on His apostolic 
journeyings; these formed the beginning of the new 
religious society He was to found. 

“And it came to pass in those days, that he went 
out into a mountain to pray, and he passed the whole 
night in the prayer of God. And when day was 
come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose 
twelve of them (whom also he named apostles): 
Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his 
brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 
Matthew and Thomas, James, the son of Alpheus, 
and Simon who is called Zelotes, and Jude the 
brother of James, and Judas Iscariot who was the 
traitor. 


1 St. Buke, IV, 16, 21. 
6 


82 THp DRAMA OP THp WORDD’S HISTORY. 


“And coming down with them, he stood in a plain 
place, in the company of his disciples, and a very 
great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusa¬ 
lem, and the sea-coast both of Tyre and Sidon, who 
were come to hear him, and to be healed of their 
diseases. And they that were troubled with unclean 
spirits, were cured. And all the multitude sought to 
touch him, for virtue went out from him, and healed 
all. 

“And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: 
Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 
Blessed are ye that hunger now: for you shall be 
filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for you shall 
laugh. Blessed shall you be when men hate you, and 
when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, 
and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s 
sake. Be glad in that day and rejoice : for behold, 
your reward is great in heaven. ’ ’ 1 

“And Jesus went about all the cities, and towns, 
teaching in. their synagogues, and preaching the 
gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease, and 
every infirmity. 

“And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion 
on them : because they were distressed, and lying like 
sheep that have no shepherd. Then he saith to his 
disciples, The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers 
are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, 
that he send forth laborers into his harvest. 

“And having called his twelve disciples together, 
he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them 
out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner 
of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles 

1 St. Tuke, VI, 12, 23. 




ST. PFTFR RANKS FIRST. 


83 


are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and 
Andrew his brother, etc. These twelve Jesus sent 
out.” 1 

Observe how Jesus gradually educated the apostles 
to share His labor, so that later, after the departure of 
their master, they might continue His work; notice, 
too, in particular, how Peter always ranks first. 

After the apostles had returned from their mission 
just mentioned, Jesus withdrew with them “into the 
towns of Caesarea - Philippi. And in the way, he 
asked his disciples, saying: Who do men say that I 
am? But they said: Some John the Baptist, other 
some, Elias, and others Jeremias or one of the 
prophets. Jesus saith to them : But who do you say 
that I am ? Simon Peter answered and said : Thou 
art Christ (the Messiah) the Son of the living God. 

“And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-Jona : because flesh and blood hath 
not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in 
heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (a 
rock), and upon this rock I will build my church, and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I 
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be 
bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 

“From that time Jesus began to shew his disciples, 
that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things 
from the ancients and scribes and chief-priests, and be 
put to death, and the third day rise again.” 2 

The time of His passion and death, announce a to 

1 St. Matt., IX, 35, 38; X, 1, 5. 

2 St. Mark, VIII, 27 ; cf. St. Matt., XVI, 13, 21; St. buke, 
IX, 8. 



84 thk drama of thf world’s history. 

His apostles by Our Lord himself, would be for them 
also a time of sorrow and temptation. Therefore it 
was of vital importance that their faith in the divinity 
of Jesus and His Messianic mission should be 
strengthened. 

“And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter 
and James and John ; and leadeth them up into a high 
mountain apart by themselves, and was transfigured 
before them. And his garments became shining and 
exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller upon earth 
can make white. And there appeared to them Blias 
and Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. And 
Peter answering, said to Jesus: Rabbi, it is good for 
us tp be here : and let us make three tabernacles, one 
for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Blias. For 
he knew not what he said : for they were struck with 
fear. 

“And there was a cloud overshadowing them ; and 
a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is my 
most beloved Son, hear ye him. 

‘ ‘And immediately looking about, they saw no man 
any more, but Jesus only with them. And as they 
came down from the mountain, he charged them not 
to tell any man what things they had seen, till the son 
of man shall be risen again from the dead. 

“And they kept the word to themselves ; question¬ 
ing together what that should mean: when he shall 
be risen from the dead. ’ ’ 1 

A long time had elapsed since this event; Jesus 
had miraculously cured many sick, and had given 
many lessons of virtue to His apostles. Again He 
announced His impending Passion. 

1 St. Mark, IX, 1, 8; cf. St. Matt., XVII, 1, 9; St. Tuke, 
IX, 28 , 36. 




. JLSUS FORLTLLLS His PASSION. 85 

‘.‘And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; 
and Jesus went before them, and they were astonished; 
and following were afraid. And taking again the 
twelve, he began to tell them the things that should 
befall him. 

“Saying: Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the 
Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief-priests, and 
to the scribes and ancients, and they shall condemn 
him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles. 
And they shall mock him, and spit on him, and' 
scourge him, and kill him : and the third day he shall 
rise again. And they understood none of these things, 
and this word was hid from them, and they under¬ 
stood not the things that were said. ’ ’ 1 

Jesus came to Jerusalem to offer up the sacrifice of 
our redemption. The high priests and the scribes, 
seeing that He condemned their hypocrisy, had re¬ 
peatedly opposed Him. Notwithstanding the clear 
evidence they had of His divine mission, nothing could 
induce them to acknowledge Him as the Messiah. 
They even thought of putting Him out of the way. 

Jesus now showed them in the following striking 
parable how they had pursued the prophets sent by 
God, and how they would put to death even Him, the 
Son of God. 

“There was an householder,’’ said He, “who 
planted a vineyard, and made a hedge around it, and 
dug in it a wine-press, and built a tower, and let it out to 
husbandmen; and went into a strange country. And 
when the time for fruits drew nigh, he sent his ser¬ 
vants to the husbandmen that they might receive the 

1 St. Mark, X, 32,34• St. Luke, XVIII, 31, 34; St. Matt., 
XX, 17, 19. 


86 THE DRAMA OF THE WORLD’S HISTORY. 

fruits thereof. And the husbandmen, laying hands 
on his servants, beat one, and killed another, and 
stoned another. 

“Again he sent other servants, more than the for¬ 
mer; and they did to them in like manner. * 

“And last of all he sent to them his son, saying: 
They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen 
seeing the son, said among themselves: This is the 
heir: come, let us kill him, and we shall have his 
inheritance. And taking him, they cast him forth 
out of the vineyard, and killed him. 

“When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall 
come, what will he do to those husbandmen ? They 
say to him: He will bring those evil men to an evil 
end; and will let out his vineyard to other husband¬ 
men, that shall render him the fruit in due season. 

“Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the 
Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the 
same has become the head of the corner ? By the Tord 
this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes . 1 
Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall 
be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation 
yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall 
on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it 
shall fall, it shall grind him to powder. 

“And when the chief priests and Pharisees had 
heard his parables, they knew that he spoke of them. 
And seeking to lay hands on him, they feared the 
multitudes: because they held him as a prophet .” 2 

The Pharisees now strove on different occasions to 

1 Psalm CXVII, 22, 28. 

2 St. Matt., XXI, 33, 46; St. Mark, XII, 1, 12; St. Luke, 
XX, 9, 19. 



THK PASSION. 


87 


catch Him in His words; but in vain. Jesus showed 
them with ever increasing evidence that He was the 
Messiah, and as such the Son of God. This He proved 
to them when he asked: “What think you of Christ 
(the Messiah) ? Whose son is he ? They said to 
him: David’s. He saith to them: How then doth 
David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said 
to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine 
enemies thy footstool ? 1 If David then call him Lord, 
how is he his son ? 

“And no man was able to answer him a word; 
neither durst any man from that day forth ask him 
any questions .’’ 2 

The time for the Redemption of the world ap¬ 
proached. The Pharisees deliberated anew, how they 
might do away with Jesus; Judas promised to betray 
Him. 

In the meantime, Jesus with His apostles had 
repaired to Mount Sion, to the upper chamber of the 
last supper. There He celebrated the Jewish Pasch, 
and in humility washed the feet of His apostles; for 
the first time, He gave Himself to them as food; and 
there He pointed out the traitor. Again He gave 
Himself out as the expected Messiah, the Son of God. 

The four evangelists now give us in the last chap¬ 
ters, each in his own way, the history of the passion, 
and the events following it. Principally as eye¬ 
witnesses, or from the account of eye-witnesses, they 
write of Jesus and His apostles: 

“And a hymn being said, they went out unto 

1 Psalm CIX, 1. 

2 St. Matt., XXII, 41, 46; St. Mark, XII, 36, 37; St. 
L/uke, XX, 41, 44. 


88 THE) DRAMA OR THE) WORRD’S HISTORY. 

Mount Olivet. Then Jesus saith to them: All you 
shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is writ¬ 
ten: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the 
flock shall be dispersed. But after I shall be risen 
again, I will go before you into Galilee. 

“And Peter answering, said to him: Although all 
shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scan¬ 
dalized. 

‘ ‘Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, that in this 
night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. 

“Peter saith to him: Yea, though I .should die 
with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner 
said all the disciples. 

“Then Jesus came with them into a country place 
which is called Gethsemani; and he said to his dis¬ 
ciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder, and pray. And 
taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, 
he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad. Then he 
saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death: 
Stay you here, and watch with me. 

“And going a little further, he fell upon his face, 
praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let 
this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will, 
but as thou wilt! 

“And he cometh to his disciples, and findeth them 
asleep, and he saith to Peter: What! Could you not 
watch one hour with me? Watch ye, and pray that 
ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is 
willing, but the flesh weak. 

“Again the second time, he went and prayed, say¬ 
ing: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, 
but I must drink it, thy will be done. And he cometh 
again, and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were 



the; bktrayau by judas. 


89 


heavy. . And leaving them, he went again, and he 
prayed the third time, saying the self-same word. 
Then he cometh to his disciples, and saith to them: 
'Sleep ye now and take your rest; behold the hour is 
at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into 
the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go: behold he is 
at hand that will betray me. 

“As he yet spoke, behold Judas, one of the twelve 
came, and with him a great multitude with swords and 
clubs, sent from the chief priests and the ancients of 
the people. And he that betrayed him, gave them a 
sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he, 
hold him fast. 

“And forthwith coming to Jesus, he said: Hail 
Rabbi. And he kissed him. ’ ’ 1 

“And Jesus saith to him: Judas, dost thou betray 
the Son of man with a kiss?” 2 

“Then they came up, and laid hands on Jesus, 
and held him.” 3 

“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and 
struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his 
right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus. 

“Jesus therefore said to Peter: Put up thy sword 
into the scabbard. The chalice which my Father hath 
given me, shall I not drink it?” 4 

“And Jesus said to them: You are come out as it 
were to a robber with swords and clubs to apprehend 
me. I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and 
you laid not hands on me. ’ ’ 5 

1 St. Matt., XXVI, 30, 49. 

2 St. Tuke, XXII, 48. 

3 St. Matt., XXVI, 50. 

4 St. John, XVIII, 11. 

5 St. Matt., XVI, 55. 


90 THK DRAMA OR THR WORRD’S HISTORY. 

“But this is your hour and the power of dark¬ 
ness. ’ ’ 1 

“Then the band, and the tribune, and the servants 
of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound him.” 2 

“Then his disciples all leaving him, fled .’’ 3 

“And they led him away to Annas first, for he was 
father-in-law to Caiphas, who was the high priest of 
that year. Now Caiphas was he who had given the 
council to the Jews: That it was expedient that one 
man should die for the people. 

“And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did an¬ 
other disciple (commonly supposed to be St. John 
himself who is writing). And that disciple was known 
to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the 
court of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door 
without. The other disciple, therefore, who was known 
to the high priest, went out, and spoke to the portress, 
and brought in Peter. The maid, therefore, that was 
portress, saith to Peter: Art not thou also one of this 
man’s disciples? He saith: I am not. Now the ser¬ 
vants and ministers stood at a fire of coals, because it 
was cold, and warmed themselves. And with them 
was Peter also standing, and warming himself. 

“The high priest, therefore, asked Jesus of his 
disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him: 
I have spoken openly to the world: I have always 
taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither 
all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken noth¬ 
ing. Why askest thou me? Ask them who have 
heard what I have spoken unto them: behold they 
know what things I have said. 

1 St. Ruke, XXII, 53. 

2 St. John, XVIII, 12. 

3 St. Matt., XXVI, 56. 





JFSUS, THE) SON OF GOD. 


91 


“And when he had said these things, one of the 
servants standing by, gave Jesus a blow, saying: 
Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered 
him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; 
but if well, why strikest thou me? 

“And Annas sent him bound to Caiphas the 
high priest. 

“And Simon Peter was standing, and warming 
himself. They said therefore to him : Art not thou 
also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said: 
I am not. One of the servants of the high priest (a 
kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut oh) saith to him: 
Did not I see thee in the garden with him ? Again 
therefore Peter denied; and immediately the cock 
crew. ’ ’ 1 

“And the Ford turning looked on Peter. And 
Peter remembered the word of the Ford, as he had 
said: Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 
And Peter going out wept bitterly. ’ ’ 2 

“And the chief priests and all the council sought 
for evidence against Jesus, that they might put him to 
death, and found none. For many bore false witness 
against him, and their evidences were not agreeing. ” 3 

“And the high priest, rising up in the midst, asked 
Jesus, saying: Answerest thou nothing to the things 
that are laid to thy charge by these men ? But he held 
his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high 
priest asked him, and said to him: Art thou the Christ, 
the Son of the blessed God? And Jesus said to him: 
I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on 

1 St. John, XVIII, 12, 27. 

2 St. Puke, XXII, 61, 62. 

3 St. Mark, XIV, 55, 56. 


92 THE DRAMA OF THE WORRD’S HISTORY. 

the right hand of the ‘power of God , and coming with 
the clouds of heaven. 

“Then the high priest rending his garments, saith: 
What need we any further witnesses? You have 
heard the blasphemy. What think you? Who all 
condemned him to be guilty of death. 

“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him: 
and others .struck his face with the palms of their 
hands, saying: Prophesy unto us, O Christ, who is he 
that struck thee?” 1 

“And straightway in the morning, the chief priests 
holding a consultation with the ancients and the 
scribes and the whole council, binding Jesus, led him 
away, and delivered him to Pilate.” 2 

“Then they led Jesus from Caiphas to the gov¬ 
ernor’s hall. And it was morning; and they went not 
into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that 
they might eat the Pasch. 

“Pilate, therefore, went out to them, and said: 
What accusation bring you against this man ? They 
answered, and said to him: If he were not a malefac¬ 
tor, we would not have delivered him up to thee. 

“Pilate, therefore, said to them: Take him you, 
and judge him according to your law. The Jews, 
therefore, said to him: It is not lawful for us to put 
any man to death. That the word of Jesus might be 
fulfilled, which he said, signifying what death he 
should die. 

“Pilate, therefore, went into the hall again, and 
called Jesus, and said to him: Art thou the king of 

1 St. Matt., XXVI, 67, 68. 

2 St. Mark, XV, 1. 



THK KINGDOM OF TRUTH. 93 

the Jews? Jesus answered: Sayest thou this thing of 
thyself, or have others told it thee of me ? 

“Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation, 
and tjie chief priests, have delivered thee up to me: 
what hast thou done? 

“Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this 
world. If my kingdom were of this world, my ser¬ 
vants w T ould certainly strive that I should not be de¬ 
livered to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not 
from hence. 

“Pilate, therefore, said to him: Art thou a king 
then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. 
For this was I born, and for this came I into the 
world; that I should give testimony to the truth. 

“Everyone that is of the truth, heareth my voice. 

“Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when 
he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and 
saith to them: I find no cause in him.” 1 

“But they were more earnest, saying: He stirreth 
up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, begin¬ 
ning from Galilee to this place. 

“But Pilate hearing Galilee, asked if the man were 
of Galilee ? And when he understood that he was of 
Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him away to Herod, who 
was also himself at Jerusalem in those days. And 
Herod seeing Jesus, was very glad; for he was desir¬ 
ous of a long time to see him, because he had heard 
many things of him, and he hoped to see some sign 
wrought by him. And he questioned him in many 
words. But he answered him nothing. 

“And the chief priests and the scribes stood by, 
earnestly accusing him. 


St. John, XVIII, 28, 38. 


94 the drama of the world’s history. 

“And Herod with his army set him at nought, and 
mocked him, putting on him a white garment, and 
sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate were 
made friends, that same day; for before they were 
enemies one to another. 

“And Pilate, calling together the chief priests, and 
the magistrates, and the people, said to them : You 
have presented unto me this man, as one that per- 
verteth the people; and behold I, having examined 
him before you, find no cause in this man, in those 
things wherein you accuse him. No, nor Herod 
neither. For I sent you to him, and behold, nothing 
worthy of death is done to him. ’ ’ 1 

“But you have a custom that I should release one 
unto you at the Pasch; will you, therefore, that I re¬ 
lease unto you the king of the Jews? Then cried they 
all again, saying: Not this man, but Barabbas. Now 
Barabbas was a robber .” 2 

“And Pilate again spoke to them, desiring to 
release Jesus. But they cried again, saying: Crucify 
him. And he said to them a third time: Why, what 
evil hath this man done ? I find no cause of death in 
him; I will chastise him therefore, and let him go.” 3 

“Then, therefore, Pilate took Jesus, and scourged 
him. And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put 
it upon his head; and they put on him a purple gar¬ 
ment. And they came to him, and said : Hail, king 
of the Jews; and they gave him blows. 

“Pilate, therefore, went forth again, and saith to 
them: Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that you 

1 St. Luke, XXIII, 5, 15. 

2 St. John, XVIII, 39, 40. 

3 St. Luke, XXIII, 20, 22. 





THE JEWS REJECT THE MESSIAH. 


95 


may know that I find no cause in him. (Jesus, there¬ 
fore, came forth, bearing the crown of thorns and the 
purple garment.) And he saith to them: Behold the 
Man. When the chief priests, therefore, and the ser¬ 
vants, had seen him, they cried out, saying : Crucify 
him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Take him 
you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him. The 
Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to 
the law he ought to die, because he made himself the 
Son of God. When Pilate, therefore, had heard this 
saying, he feared the more. And he entered into the 
hall again, and he said to Jesus: Whence art thou? 
But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate, therefore, saith 
to him: Speakest thou not to me ? Knowest thou not 
that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power 
to release thee? Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not 
have any power against me, unless it were given thee 
from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to 
thee, hath the greater sin. 

“And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release 
him. But the Jews cried out, saying : If thou release 
this man, thou art not Caesar’s friend. Tor whosoever 
maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar. 

“Now when Pilate had heard these words, he 
brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment 
seat, in the place that is called Ifithostrotos, and in 
Hebrew Gabbatha. And it was the parasceve of the 
Pasch, about the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews: 
Behold your king. But they cried out: Away with 
him; away with him; crucify him. Pilate saith to 
them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests 
answered: We have no king but Caesar. 

“Then, therefore, he delivered him to them to be 


96 THE DRAMA OF THE WORRD’S HISTORY. 

crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him forth. 
And bearing his own cross, he went forth to that place 
which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha. 
Where they crucified him, and with him two others, 
one on each side, and Jesus in the midst .” 1 

“And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they 
know not what they do. ’ * 2 

“And one of those robbers who were hanged, blas¬ 
phemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself, 
and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, say¬ 
ing: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art under 
the same condemnation ? And we indeed justly, for 
we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man 
hath done no evil. And he saith to Jesus: Ford, re¬ 
member me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. 
And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day 
thou shalt be with me in paradise. ’ ’ 3 

“Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were 
now accomplished, that the scripture might be ful¬ 
filled, said: I thirst. Now there was a vessel set there 
full of vinegar. And they putting a sponge full of 
vinegar about hyssop, put it to his mouth.” 4 

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud 
voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? that is, 
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And 
some that stood there and heard, said : This man 
calleth Elias. 

“And immediately one of them running, took a 
sponge, and filled it with vinegar; and put it on 
a reed, and gave him to drink. 

1 St. John, XIX, 1, 18. 

2 St. Duke, XXIII, 34. 

3 St. Euke, XXIII, 39, 44. 

4 St. John, XIX, 28, 29. 




THE CRUCIFIXION. 97 

“And Jesus, again crying with a loud voice, 
yielded up the ghost. 

“And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two 
from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, 
and the rocks were rent. And the graves were 
opened: and many of the bodies of the saints, that had 
slept, arose. And coming out of the tombs, after his 
resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared 
to many. 

“Now the centurion and they that were with him 
watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the 
things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: In¬ 
deed this was the Son of God. ’ ’ 1 

“Then the Jews (because it was the parasceve), 
that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on 
the sabbath day (for that was a great sabbath day), 
besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and 
that they might be taken away. 

“The soldiers therefore came; and they broke the 
legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified 
with him. But after they were come to Jesus, when 
they saw that he was already dead, they did not 
break his legs. But one of the soldiers with a spear 
opened his side, and immediately there came out 
blood and water. And he that saw it hath given 
testimony; and his testimony is true; and he knoweth 
that he saith true, that you also may believe. For 
these things were done, that the Scriptures might be 
fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him. And 
again another Scripture saith: They shall look on him 
whom they pierced. ’ ’ 2 

1 St. Matt., XXVII, 46, 54. 

2 St. John, XIX, 31, 37; cf. Zach., XII, 10. 

7 


98 the; drama of the; world’s history. 

“And when evening was come (because it was the 
parasceve, that is, the day before the sabbath), Joseph 
of Arimathea, a noble counsellor, who was also him¬ 
self looking for the kingdom of God, came and went 
in boldly to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 
But Pilate wondered that he should be already dead. 
And sending for the centurion, he asked him if he 
were already dead. And when he had understood it 
by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. ” 1 

“And Joseph buying fine linen, took him down, 
and Nicodemus also came, he who at the first came to 
Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, 
about an hundred pounds weight: They took, there¬ 
fore, the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths 
with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. 
Now there was in the place where he was crucified, 
a garden: and in the garden a new sepulchre wherein 
no man yet had been laid. There, therefore, because 
of the parasceve of the Jews, they laid Jesus, because 
the sepulchre was nigh at hand. ’ ’ 2 

“And the next day, which followed the day of 
preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came 
together to Pilate, saying: Sir, we have remembered 
that that seducer said, while he was yet alive: After 
three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, 
that the sepulchre be guarded until the third day: lest 
perhaps his disciples come, and steal him away, and 
say to the people: He is risen from the dead; and the 
last error shall be worse than the first. 

“Pilate saith to them: You have a guard; go, guard 

1 St. Mark, XV, 42, 46. 

2 St. John, XIX, 39, 42. 



THE RESURRECTION. 


99 


it as you know. And they departing, made the se¬ 
pulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting guards .” 1 

“And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene 
and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought 
sweet spices, that coming they might anoint Jesus. 
And they said one to another: Who shall roll us back 
the stone from the door of the sepulchre ?” 2 

“And behold there was a great earthquake. For 
an angel of the Ford descended from heaven, and 
coming rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. And 
his countenance was as lightning, and his raiment as 
snow. And for fear of him, the guards were struck 
with terror, and became as dead men. 

“And the angel answering, said to the women: 
Fear not you: for I know that you seek Jesus who was 
crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. 
Come, and see the place where the Ford was laid. 
And going quickly, tell ye his disciples that he is 
risen: and behold he will go before you into Galilee: 
there you shall see him. Fo, I have foretold it to }^ou. 

“And they went out quickly from the sepulchre 
with fear and great joy, running to tell his disciples. 
And behold Jesus met them, saying: All hail! But 
they came up, and took hold of his feet, and adored 
him. 

“Then Jesus said to them: Fear not. Go, tell my 
brethren that they go into Galilee, there they shall 
see me. 

“Who when they were departed, behold some of 
the guards came into the city, and told the chief 
priests all things that had been done. And they 

1 St. Matt., XXVII, 62, 66. 

2 St. Mark, XVI, 1, 3. 

L, of C. 


IOO thr drama or thk wordd’s history. 

being assembled together with the ancients, taking 
counsel, gave a great sum of money to the soldiers, 
saying: Say you, his disciples came by night, and 
stole him away when we were asleep. And if the 
governor shall hear of this, we will persuade him, and 
secure you. _ 

“So they taking the money, did as they were 
taught: and this word was spread abroad among the 
Jews even unto this day.” 1 

The women ‘ ‘going back from the sepulchre, told 
all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. And 
these words seemed to them as idle tales; and they did 
not believe them. ’ ’ 2 

“Peter, therefore, went out, and that other dis¬ 
ciple (John), and they came to the sepulchre. And 
they both ran together, and that other disciple did 
outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And 
when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; 
but yet he went not in. Then cometh Simon Peter, 
following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw 
the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, that had been 
about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but 
apart, wrapt up into one place. Then that other dis¬ 
ciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: 
and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not 
the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. ’ ’ 3 

“And behold, two of them went, the same day, to 
a town that was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, named 
Kmmaus. And they talked together of all these 
things which had happened. And it came to pass, 

1 St. Matt., XXVIII, 2, 15. 

2 St. Duke, XXIV, 9, 11. 

5 St. John, XX, 3, 9. 


JESUS APPEARS TO HIS DISCIPRES. 


IOI 


that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, 
Jesus himself also drawing near, went with them. 
But their eyes were held, that they should not know 
him. And he said to them: What are these dis¬ 
courses that you hold one with another as you walk, 
and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was 
Cleophas, answering, said to him : Art thou only a 
stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things 
that have been done there in these days? To whom 
he said : What things ? And they said: Concerning 
Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in 
work and word before God and all the people. And 
how our chief priests and princes delivered him to be 
condemned to death, and crucified him: But we 
hoped, that it was he that would have redeemed 
Israel: and now besides all this, today is the third 
day since these things were done. Yea, and certain 
women also of our company affrighted us, who before 
if was light, were at the sepulchre. And not finding 
his body, came, saying, that they had also seen a 
vision of angels, who say that he is alive. And some 
of our people went to the sepulchre, and found it so as 
the women had said, but him they found not. 

“Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of 
heart to believe in all things which the prophets have 
spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these 
things, and so to enter into his glory? 

“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he 
expounded to them in all the Scriptures, the things 
that were concerning him. And they drew nigh to 
the town, whither they were going: and he made as 
though he would go farther. But they constrained 
him, saying: Stay with us, because it is towards 
evening, and the day is now far spent. 


102 THR DRAMA OR THK WORRD’S HISTORY. 

“And lie went with them. And it came to pass, 
whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and 
blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their 
eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he 
vanished out of their sight. 

“And they said one to the other: Was not our 
heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in the way, 
and opened to us the Scriptures? And rising up the 
same hour, they went back to Jerusalem : and they 
found the eleven gathered together, and those that 
were with them. Saying: The Ford is risen indeed, 
and hath appeared to Simon. 

“And they told what things were done in the way; 
and how they knew him in the breaking of bread. 

‘ ‘Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus 
stood in the midst of them and said to them: Peace 
be with you; it is I, fear not. 

“But they being troubled and affrighted, supposed 
that they saw a spirit. And he said to them: Why 
are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your 
hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; 
handle, and see: for a spirit has not flesh and bones, 
as you see me to have. And when he had said this, 
he showed them his hands and feet. But while yet 
they believed not, and wondered for joy, he said : 
Have you here anything to eat? And they offered 
him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And 
when he had-eaten before them, taking the remains, 
he gave to them. ’ ’ 1 

“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to 
you: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 
When he had .said this, he breathed on them ; and he 


1 St. Duke, XXIV, 13, 43. 




DIVINK COMMISSION OF THF APOSTFKS. 103 

said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins 
you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins 
you shall retain, they are retained. 

“Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called 
Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The 
other disciples therefore said to him : We have seen the 
Tord. But he said to them : Except I shall see in his 
hands the print of the nails, and put my finger in the 
place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I 
will not believe. 

“And after eight days again his disciples were 
within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the 
doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: 
Peace be to you. Then he saith to Thomas : Put in 
thy finger hither, and see my hands ; and bring hither 
thy hand and put it into my side; and be not faith¬ 
less, but believing. 

“Thomas answered, and said to him: My Eord, 
and my God! 

“Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, 
Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have 
not seen, and have believed. v 1 

“After this, Jesus showed himself again to the dis¬ 
ciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he showed himself 
after this manner. There were together Simon Peter, 
and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathanael, 
who was of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, 
and two others of his disciples. 

“Simon Peter saith to them : I go afishing. They 
say to him : We also come with thee. And they went 
forth, and entered into the ship: and that night they 
caught nothing. 


St. John, XX, 21, 29. 


104 THE DRAMA OR THE WORLD’S HISTORY. 

“But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on 
the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was 
Jesus. Jesus therefore said to them : Children, have 
you any meat? They answered him : No. He saith 
to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship 
and you shall find. They cast therefore; and now 
they were not able to draw it, for the multitude of 
fishes. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved 
(John) said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, 
when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat 
about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into 
the sea. But the other disciples came in the ship (for 
they were not far from the land, but as it were two 
hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes. 

“As soon then as they came to land, they saw hot 
coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus 
saith to them : Bring hither of the fishes which you 
have now caught. Simon Peter went up and drew 
the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and 
fifty three. And although there were so many, the 
net was not broken. Jesus saith to them : Come, and 
dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask 
him : Who art thou ? knowing that it was the Lord. 

“And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth 
them, and fish in like manner.” 1 

“When therefore they had dined, Jesus said to 
Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me 
more than these? He saith to him : Yea, Lord, thou 
knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my 
lambs. 

“He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, 
lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou 


1 St. John, XXI, 1, 13. 


ST. peter, the chief shepherd. 105 

knowest that I love thee. He saith to him : Feed my 
lambs. 

“He said to him the third time: Simon, son of 
John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he 
had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? 
And he said to him : Lord, thou knowest all things: 
thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him : Feed 
my sheep. 

“Amen, amen, I say to thee; when thou wast 
younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where 
thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, .thou 
shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall 
gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 
And this he said signifying by what death he should 
glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to 
him : Follow me. ’’ 1 

Such is the sum and substance of the historical 
account of the evangelists regarding the life, death, 
and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have 
given all these events in detail, especially the appari¬ 
tions of our Lord after His resurrection; because, from 
the beginning of Christianity, the personality and life of 
Jesus Christ, especially His resurrection, have formed 
the foundation of Christian faith and hope. St. Paul, 
moreover, tells us of other apparitions of Christ—of 
those mentioned in the gospels, as well as those not 
mentioned. He tells us, for instance, that Christ on 
on one occasion appeared to “more than five hundred 
of the brethren at once, of whom many remain to this 
present, and some are fallen asleep .” 2 Then he 
adds for the instruction of the Corinthians to whom 
he is writing: 

1 St. John, XXI, 15, 19. 
j 2 I. Cor., XV, 6 . 


106 THK DRAMA OF THK WORRD’S HISTORY. 

“Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again 
from the dead, how do some among you say, that 
there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be 
no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen 
again, and if Christ be not risen again, then is our 
preaching vain and your faith is also vain. Yea, and 
we are found false witnesses of God : because we have 
given testimony against God, that he hath raised up 
Christ; whom he hath not raised up if the dead rise 
not again. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, 
we are of all men the most miserable. ’ ’ 1 

But let us return to the Gospels. 

In accordance with earlier instructions, “the 
eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain 
where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him 
they adored : but some doubted. 

“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All 
power is .given to me in heaven and in earth. Going 
therefore , teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all 
days, even to the consummation of the world.” 2 

An exalted commission, a sublime calling, the 
accomplishment and realization of which we have 
daily before our eyes ! 

And not only St. Matthew (XXVIII, 16, 20), 
from whom the text just quoted has been taken, but 
St. Mark also (XVI, 14, 20) announces this commis¬ 
sion in almost the same words: ‘ ‘At length he appeared 
to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided 

1 I. Cor., XV, 6, 19. 

2 St. Matt., XXVIII, 16, 20. 



THK KVANGKlylZATION OF THF WORLD, 


107 

them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, 
because they did not believe them who had seen him 
after he was risen again. 

“And he said to them: 11 Go ye into the whole 
world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that 
bslieveth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that 
believeth not, shall be condemned. And these signs 
shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall 
cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues: 
they shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink 
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall 
lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. ’ ’ 

And St. kuke in the Acts of the Apostles : “Then 
Jesus going with his apostles towards Bethania, said: 
But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost 
coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me 
in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even 
to the uttermost parts of the earth. 

“And when he had said these things, while they 
looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him 
out of their sight. And while they were beholding 
him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by 
them in white garments. Who also said: Ye men of 
Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven f This 
Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so 
come, as you have seen him going into heaven . V1 

The work of the redemption was consummated. 
Christ as the first born had risen from the dead; the 
doctrine of salvation was announced; those who in 
their own persons, and in their successors were to 
promulgate this doctrine and to dispense the means of 
salvation to the most distant races till the end of time, 

1 Acts of the Apostles, I, 8, 9, 11. 


108 THE DRAMA OR THE WORED’S HISTORY. 

were commissioned and empowered. In tlie great 
drama, the principal act dividing the world’s history 
into pre-Christian and Christian was completed. 

Our role falls in the act immediately following, in 
which the Apostles and their successors are fulfilling 
the commission given them by Christ, and in which 
the human race enters more and more into the fold 
whose invisible shepherd is the Son of God. 

The Fast Judgment forms the closing act: 

“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man 
in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth 
mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in 
the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty.’’ 1 

“And all the nations shall be gathered together 
before him, and he shall separate them one from an¬ 
other, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the 
goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, 
but the goats on his left. 

“Then shall the king say to them that shall be on 
his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, pos¬ 
sess the kingdom prepared for you from the foun¬ 
dation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave 
me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; 
I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you 
clothed me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, 
and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, 
Saying: Ford, when did we see thee hungry, and fed 
thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did 
we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, 
and covered thee ? Or when did we see thee sick or 
in prison, and came to thee? And the king answer¬ 
ing, shall say to them: Amen, I say to you, as long as 


1 St. Matt., XXIV, 30. 




THK CLOSING ACT. 


109 


you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did 
it to me. 

“Then he shall say to them also that shall be on 
his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into ever¬ 
lasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his 
angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to 
eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 
I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and 
you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you did 
not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, say¬ 
ing: Ford, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, 
or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did 
not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, 
saying: Amen, I say to you, as long as you did it not 
to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. 

u And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but 
the just, into everlasting life 1 

Such is the drama of the world’s history — not 
poetry, but truth and reality! 


1 St. Matt., XXV, 32, 46. 



2. Books of the New Testament. 


Edgar’s Fetter. 

Reverend Father, I am deeply grateful for your 
long, detailed letter. There is, indeed, something 
unique about the words of the Sacred Scriptures. True, 
I had heard in my early youth all these details of the 
life of Jesus Christ; but abridged in this way, and 
related in the very words of the Scriptures, they 
possess a peculiar charm. The very simplicity of the 
narrative bears the stamp of truth. 

Still my imagination cannot reconcile itself to the 
miracles related; it prevents my seeing in these 
accounts anything more than pious legends. In this 
I am not logical, I frankly admit; for, as soon as the 
existence of a personal God is proved, no valid objec¬ 
tions to miracles can be offered. However, I should 
like to have a proof that the four evangelists, and, in 
general, the books of the New Testament, are as 
authentic as the works of Sallust or Tacitus, for 
instance. 

May I ask you then to give me similar proofs of 
the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testa¬ 
ment? 

Father H.’s Answer. 

Dear Friend, I gladly comply with your request as 
it is wholly justifiable. We are, then, to prove from 
the books of the New Testament, that the numerous 
(no) 


MIRACI^S AND DAVID STRAUSS. 111 

Messianic prophecies, which existed evidently long 
before Christ, have really been fulfilled in Jesus of 
Nazareth. From these books we must draw, in great 
part, the dogmas of our faith. And this holds true in 
a much stricter sense of you Protestants than of us 
Catholics, because the Scriptures are for you the only 
source , the only rule of faith , whereas we acknowledge 
the teaching office of the Church as our rule, and the 
Sacred Scriptures, with tradition, as the source. If I 
have heretofore referred to the historical accounts of 
the New Testament, it has always been with the self- 
evident postulate that we would at some later period 
discuss more thoroughly the question of their genuine¬ 
ness. We will open this discussion with the following 
passage from an opponent* of Christianity, David 
Strauss: 

“If the gospels are real historical documents, then 
miracles cannot be eliminated from the account of 
Christ’s life; if, inversely, miracles are incompatible 
with history, then the gospels cannot be historical 
sources. ’ ’ 1 

This gives us manifestly the exact ground upon 
which rationalism contests the genuineness of the 
gospels, for miracles arrest our attention on almost 
every page. If a miracle is an impossibility, then the 
gospels are nothing more than children’s fables, and 
Christianity as a whole, with its world-wide and time- 
enduring influence, its civilizing power, its Gothic 
Cathedrals, its countless martyrs, is built upon a 
collection of fictitious tales. The Christians, concern¬ 
ing whom Pliny, a contemporary of the apostles, 

1 Strauss, “Deben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk.” 1864, 

p. 18. 


112 


BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


reported to Trajan that at their meetings they sang 
hymns to Christ as the one God , 1 were simply deluded 
by impostors, — so deceived by them in fact, that 
thousands of them shed their blood; and that for a 
collection of unfounded statements, concerning the 
truth or falsity of which many of them could have 
obtained personal information, since these events were 
represented as having taken place in their own life¬ 
time, for it was not forty years after the death, resur¬ 
rection and ascension of Christ that the first bloody 
persecution took place under Nero. 

Hence, I assert that if miracles are impossible, 
we must consider these Christians as poor, deluded 
creatures; moreover, that the writers of the gospels, 
and the apostles who spread these facts by word, 
before the gospel accounts were written, were likewise 
deceivers or deceived. Fortunately, however, miracles 
are not impossibilities, as I have already shown you; 
for there is a personal God who created the world and 
constantly holds it in His hand. We must then 
accept the foundation of Christianity through miracles; 
we must, in particular, accept the resurrection of 
Christ, because, if we reject these miracles, we shall 
be forced to acknowledge with Dante even a greater 
one: — 

“That all the world,” said I, “should have been turned 

To Christian, and no miracle been wrought, 

Would in itself be such a miracle, 

The rest were not a hundreth part so great.” 2 

When it is once proved, or even made only 
apparent, that miracles played a part in the establish- 

1 Pliny, Epist. X, 97. 

2 Dante, Paradise, cant. XXIV, 104, 108. 



AGE OF THE PRESENT EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS. 113 

ment of Christianity, the only solid objection to 
the authenticity of the gospels is at once removed; 
that is, the objection urged by such men as Voltaire 
and Renan. 

Prescinding from the miracles related by the 
gospels, these narratives must be considered quite as 
genuine and authentic as the almost contemporaneous 
writings of Caesar and Tacitus ; supposing that equally 
strong historical proofs be adduced for them .. 

These proofs I will quote from a recently published 
writing by Pawlicki, 1 the Cracow professor: and also 
from the statements of the Protestant Leipsic professor 
Tischendorf, 2 the renowned discoverer of the Codex 
Sinaiticus. L,et us first examine the extrinsic, and 
then the intrinsic principles of their genuineness. 

1. First, we may ask: how old are the present 
existing manuscripts of the New Testament? 

The oldest manuscripts of Caesar, Tacitus, and 
Seneca, are handed down from the ninth century; of 
the two hundred and fifty manuscripts of Horace only 
two have come from the eighth century; a few more or 
less damaged manuscripts of Terence, Caius, and 
Plautus, belong to the fifth; a few of Virgil and 
Cicero, to the third and fourth centuries. Previous to 
this, we have only a few half-charred rolls of papyrus 
from Herculaneum dating from the first century after 
Christ, and a few fragments of Hyper ides and of 
Homer’s Iliad, discovered in Egyptian tombs and 
belonging probably to the second and third centuries 

1 Pawlicki, Der Ursprung des Christentlmms. (Mainz, 
Kirchheim, 1885.) 

2 Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien ver- 
fasst? 4. Aufl. Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1880. 

8 


114 BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

before Christ. Not long ago, it is true, a few more 
ancient fragments of Homer were discovered; but as 
to intact manuscripts, — the majority of the old 
classics, although written for the greater part before 
the time of Christ (especially the Greek classics, 
which were produced centuries before that period) are 
preserved only in recent copies, made in the eight or 
ninth century or even later. Nevertheless, they are 
universally considered genuine. 

Now, what may be said of the New Testament on 
this point? 

We possess perhaps about eighty-eight uncial 
manuscripts of the gospels: two from the fourth 
century (the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinai- 
ticus); two from the fifth century (the Codex Alexan¬ 
drian, and the Palimpsest of Saint Ephraim); while 
the others are referred to the sixth, seventh and 
eighth centuries. 

2. Now we approach still nearer to the source 
through the ancient translations and harmonies of the 
gospels. 

It is absolutely certain that in the middle of the 
second century, or soon after, that is, about sixty 
years after the death of the apostles and of the Evan¬ 
gelist John, the- four gospels were in common trans¬ 
lated into Syriac and Eatin ; a Coptic translation was 
made in the third century, and a Gothic in the fourth. 
About the year one hundred and seventy, or even 
earlier, that is, about sixty or seventy years after the 
death of Saint John, the contents of the four gospels 
were grouped into the harmony of the gospels by both 
Theophilus and Tatian. It is a universally accepted 
and undeniable fact that towards the end of the second 



SPURIOUS GOSPELS. 


115 

century, the historical books of the New Testament in 
general were held by the various churches as authen¬ 
tic, genuine, and inspired. Moreover, the nature of 
the text of the oldest manuscripts and translations 
would lead one to suppose the preexistence of an 
entire history, i. e., different modifications in the 
hand of the copyists. Tischendorf, certainly a com¬ 
petent authority, confidently concludes from this, and 
with evidence, “that our joint gospels are traced back 
at least to the beginning of the second and to the end 
of the first century. ’ ’ 1 

This brings us back to the time of the apostles. 
Now, how could the entire detailed history of the 
gospels have been fabricated at that time, when the 
greater part of the living generation in personal inter¬ 
course with the apostles, must have heard such nar¬ 
rations and preachings? Such a fictitious account of 
miracles, in manifest contradiction to the account of 
eye-witnesses would certainly have been punished in 
the churches as base deceptions. 

3. And this actually happened in the case of 
numerous spurious gospels, for instance, the so-called 
gospels of Peter, Thomas, Barnabas and others. They 
were easily distinguished from the genuine. But you 
must admit that false coins are circulated only in 
countries possessing real money; hence these apo¬ 
cryphal gospels would never have been written had 
there not been in existence genuine gospels, i. e., the 
four which since the second century have been wit¬ 
nessed to in the translations and harmonies of the 
gospels, in uninterrupted liturgical rites, and in the 


1 A. a. P. p. 128. 


Il6 BOOKS OF THE NEW TKSTAMKNT. 

numerous quotations of authors,—the Gospels of Mat¬ 
thew, Mark, Luke, and John. 

4. We shall now turn to the testimonies of 
authors, first considering St. Irenaeus. 

Irenaeus was born about the year 130 A. D., became 
bishop of Lyons ab^ut 177, and died in the beginning 
of the third century (202). How near he was to the 
apostolic time may be gleaned from the following 
words, his own to Florinus : “I saw thee,” he writes, 
“when I was a youth, in southern Asia with Poly carp, 
when thou didst dwell amidst the splendor of the 
imperial court, and wast striving to win the approbation 
of Polycarp. For I have a more vivid recollection of 
what happened at that time, than of recent matters. 
The experiences of our youth grow, as it were, with 
us, and cling tenaciously to the memory. So, I can 
even now recall the place where the blessed Polycarp 
sat during his discourses, how he walked and entered, 
how he lived, his whole appearance, his words to the 
people ; how he related his intercourse with John and 
others who had seen the Lord, and quoted their 
words; how he repeated what he had heard regarding 
the Lord and His miracles from those who had seen 
the Word of Life with their own eyes; and all this, 
indeed, in full harmony with the writing.” 1 

In harmony with what writing? Evidently with 
that translated into Latin and Syriac about the time 
that Irenaeus flourished as bishop and author, — in 
harmony especially with the gospels which Theophilus 
and Tatian had at that time woven into a diatesseron 

1 Iren. adv. haer. Ill, 3, 4, and especially his letter to 
Florinus, in Fuseb. hist. eccl. V, 20 (Iren. opp. ed. Stieren I, 
822 .) 




THE GOSPELS AND THE ANCIENT HERESIARCHS. I 17 

of the miracles and doctrines of our Ford; but in 
contradiction to the apocryphal gospels, even at that 
time condemned; finally, in harmony with those 
gospels used by Irenaeus himself in his writings, — 
none other than our four gospels, from which Irenaeus 
cites no less than four hundred passages, and concern¬ 
ing which he expressly writes the following: “So 
firmly are these gospels established that the very 
heretics give testimony to them, inasmuch as each 
one tries to confirm his own heretical doctrine by 
them. The Ebionites are convicted of having errone¬ 
ous notions about our Ford by the very gospel which 
they exclusively use, that of St. Matthew. Marcion’s 
blasphemy against the one existing God is proved by 
the very clippings which he retains of the gospel of 
St. Fuke. And those who separate Jesus from Christ 
by saying that Christ remained impassible whilst 
Jesus suffered, are condemned out of the very gospel 
of St. Mark which they advance as proof, if they 
would only read it with a love of truth. Finally, the 
followers of Valentine (fl. 130—155 A. D.) are con¬ 
victed of falsehood by the gospel of St. John, which 
they use in its entirety to prove their own combina¬ 
tions of doctrine. Therefore, since even our opponents 
testify to the gospels and use them, our assertions 
regarding them must be safe and reliable. And these 
gospels can be neither more nor less than four; for as 
there is in this world which we inhabit four regions 
in the heavens, and four chief winds, and since the 
Church is spread over the whole earth and has for her 
supporting pillars and foundation the gospels and the 
spirit of Fife, it follows that she has four supports 
breathing on all sides incorruptibility and giving life 


118 BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to man. Since this is the state of things, all those 
must be regarded as foolish, ignorant and rash who 
doubt the gospels and assert that there are more or 
fewer than those already mentioned. ’ ’ 1 

5. From Irenaeus we turn to Poly carp, to whom 
we have just referred. According to Waddington’s 
epigraphic investigations, Polycarp suffered martyrdom 
on the twenty-third of February, 155 A. D. Before 
ascending the funeral pyre he addressed to the Pro- 
consul Statius Quadratus the following words: 
“Kighty-six years I have served Christ.” He was 
born therefore in the year 69 A. D. and was over 
thirty years old at the death of the apostle St. John, 
by whom, as is well known, he was appointed bishop 
of Smyrna. During his long episcopate of more than 
fifty years, the gospels were read every Sunday to the 
assembled faithful. Is it credible that the bishop did 
not know their origin, or that he would have per¬ 
mitted them to be read had he entertained any doubt 
of their authenticity and apostolic origin? Besides, in 
his letter to the Philippians, which probably dates 
from the end of the year 107, or the beginning of 108, 
he quotes at intervals the gospels of Matthew and 
Duke, the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Peter 
and John; and gives the letters of Paul almost in full. 
From St. Matthew are cited, for example, the passages, 
“bearing in mind what the Ford said when he 
taught: Judge not that you may not be judged;” 2 
“as the Ford hath said : The spirit is indeed willing, 
but the flesh is weak ; ” 3 etc. 


1 Iren., adv. haer. Ill, II, 7, 8. 

2 St. Matt., VII, 1. 

3 St. Matt., XXVI, 41. 




IRENAEUS, POEYCARP, ST. JUSTIN MARTYR. 119 


6. In the year 106, shortly before Poly carp wrote 
his letter to the Philippians, St. Ignatius of Antioch 
was martyred in the Coliseum in Rome. We are in 
possession at present of seven genuine letters of his, 
written during his journey from Antioch to Rome ; in 
these also are found many quotations and allusions to 
the gospels of Matthew and John, to the Acts of the 
Apostles, and to most of the letters of St. Paul. 

7. In Rome itself, even before 150 A. D., the 
martyr St. Justin, in his first apology, witnessed to 
the genuineness of the gospels. He explained to the 
emperor that the Eucharist of which the Christians 
partook, was not ordinary bread or ordinary wine, but 
the flesh and blood of God. “Because the apostles,” 
he continues, “have handed down in their records, 
called the gospels, that Jesus has so commanded there¬ 
after He had taken bread, and given thanks, He said : 
“This is my body, etc.” 1 

Moreover he relates further on in his discourse, 
that the gospels were read publicly on Sundays : “On 
Sundays all those who live in the cities and in the 
country, assemble at the common place, and the 
records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets 
are read. ” 2 • 

Similar testimonies of the time of the pontificate of 
Pius I. (142—157) or shortly afterwards, are furnished 
by a fragment discovered by Muratori in 1740. Here, 
enumerated as authentic books allowed to be read at 
the divine service, are the historical writings of the 
New Testament; while, on the other hand, the Pastor 

1 Cf. St. Matt., XXVI, 26, 28; St. Euke, XXII, 19. 

2 Justin., Apol., I, c. 66, 67. 


120 


BOOKS OB THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


of Hermas (written under the same pontificate of 
Pius I.) is rejected. 1 

8. We find the Gospels used in a little village of 
distant Numidia as early as the year 180. The acts of 
the Scillitan martyrs relate how the proconsul ques¬ 
tioned the Christians: “What kind of books do you 
keep locked up in your closets?” Speratus, one of 
the martyrs, answered : “The Gospels, and the letters 
of St. Paul.” 

Now I ask, has any other ancient document such 
proofs of genuineness and authenticity as the Sacred 
Scriptures, as furnished by this constant religious use 
from the time of the apostles up to the present time? 
The aged, who had personal intercourse with Jesus 
and the apostles, could testify that what was read was 
conformable with what they themselves had learned 
or experienced; the children and youths who were 
present with the aged could deliver their testimony to 
later generations. And a guarantee of this nature is 
offered not merely by a single city, but by vast num¬ 
bers of cities and villages ; and this not in individual 
cases, but in such a way that travellers could con¬ 
stantly compare their own native communities with 
those of other Christians. 

9. Tet us now return to Rome, where even before 
St. Justin, we find St. Clement, the same whom St. 
Paul mentions in his epistle to the Philippians (IV, 
3), and who as the third successor of St. Peter then 
occupied the Roman pontifical chair.' Not later than 
the year 96 he wrote an epistle to the congregation at 

1 Den Pastor des Hermas dagegen (als erst jiingst, 
nuper, temporibus nostris, unter dem Pontificate Pius’ I. ge- 
schrieben) verwirft. 



THK RFTTFR OF BARNABAS. 


I 21 


Corinth ; and this document, too, abounds in quota¬ 
tions from the Old and New Testaments, especially 
from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and includes 
nearly all the letters of St. Paul. 

Where do we find similar credentials for other 
histories? St. Clement was contemporary with the 
authors of the writings of the New Testament which 
he quotes; on the other hand, Thucydides, for in¬ 
stance, whose genuineness no one doubts, is first 
mentioned by Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 
that is, about 330 years afer his death. 

10. Special interest attaches to the letter of Bar¬ 
nabas. It is universally ascribed to the companion of 
St. Paul, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and is, 
at all events, of the highest Christian antiquity. Now 
the fourth chapter of this letter contains the following 
passage : “Let us take care that we may not be, as it 
is written, the many called, but the few chosen.” 
This is evidently the sentence from St. Matthew, XX, 
16. Especially remarkable is the phrase “as it is 
written” (sicut scriptum est); the only writing quoted 
in this way is the sacred, the inspired writing, the 
word of God. Dr. Credner, a rationalist, not being 
able to deny the age of the letter and the scope of its 
expression, wrote in the year 1832: “The form of 
quotation: ‘sicut scriptum est’, employed in the 
book of the New Testament is, for that time, quite 
unheard of and without precedent. ’ ’ But rationalism 
knows how to strengthen its position: ‘ ‘The part of 
the letter containing the phrase in question, does not 
at present exist in the original Greek text, but only in 
an old Latin translation.” I11 the original text it 
might possibly have sounded very different! 


122 


BOOKS OB THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


But, unfortunately for rationalism, Tischendorf dis¬ 
covered in 1859 together with the “Codex Sinaiticus”, 
the original Greek of Barnabas and the disputed words 
were proved correct! 

11. Even the opponents of Christianity furnish us 
with abundant proofs of the genuineness and authen¬ 
ticity of the gospels. The oldest heretics, as Valen¬ 
tinus (fl. 140 A. D.), Basilides, Marcion, etc., did not 
oppose the Church by attacking the authenticity of 
the gospels, but by interpreting them according to 
their own heretical views. To quote these individual 
heretics would make this writing too diffuse. I shall 
bring forward only the words of St. Irenaeus (130— 
202) who in the second century writes as follows: 
“Our gospels are so firmly established, that even 
heretics bear testimony to them, and each seeks to 
found his own doctrine upon them. ’ ’ 1 

12. The heathen philosopher, Celsus, who, ac¬ 
cording to Origen, “lived under Hadrian (117—138) 
and later,” in his polemic likewise relied on our 
gospels which he plainly distinguishes from the 
apocryphal gospels, as the gospels of the first edition. 
(EvayytXiov iK rrj s TrpuTrjs ypacprjs.) He knOWS the account 
of the adoring Magi, whom, nevertheless, he called 
Chaldeans; the massacre of the children which fol¬ 
lowed ; the flight of the Child into Egypt at the com¬ 
mand of the angel; the appearance of the dove at His 
baptism ; His birth of a virgin ; the instruction which 
He gave His disciples (Matt. X, 23) “And when 
they shall persecute you in this city, flee into an¬ 
other”; the agony of His soul in Gethsemani; His 
thirst on the cross; His statement that it is easier for 

1 Irenaeus adv. haer. Ill, II, 7 ; cf. above p. 



FLAVIUS JOSFPHUS, AUGUSTINE). 


123 


a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, etc., 
wherein Celsus recognizes the misrepresentation of a 
Platonic sentence; the command of Jesus: If a man 
strike you on one cheek, turn to him the other,” 
etc. 1 

13. The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, born 
37 A. D., therefore about eight years after the death 
of Christ, 2 and who stood in high authority with the 
imperial family, wrote his Jewish Antiquities as a 
memorial to his nation after its political downfall. 
In its pages are accounts of all the Jewish sects and 
party leaders from Augustus to the destruction of the 
city of Jerusalem. He speaks also of Christ and says: 

“At this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he can be 
called man (a human being) for he performed miracles, 
and taught mankind, who gladly received the truth. 
Many Jews, as also many Greeks, followed him. This 
was Christ, the Messiah. And when on the informa¬ 
tion of our most eminent men, Pilate sentenced him to 
death, those who had loved him did not cease 
to love him for on the third day he appeared to 
them living again. This and thousands of other 
miraculous things concerning him, had been foretold 
by the prophets. And the present Christian com¬ 
munity, named from him, is in existence.” 3 

This last statement of Flavius Josephus made in 
the first century we can most heartily indorse in the 
nineteenth : Christianity still exists ! In the passage 
just quoted, the Jewish historian presents the most 

1 St. Matt., V, 39: St. Duke, VI, 29. 

2 Died at Rome 94 A. D. 

3 Flav. Joseph., Antiquit. Jud., XVIII, 3, 3; cf. Hettin¬ 
ger, kehrbuch der Fundamentaltheologie, I., p. 295. 


124 


BOOKS OF THE) NE)W TESTAMENT. 


important features of the life of Jesus related in the 
gospels. Moreover, these are by no means the only 
events he mentions; he speaks also of the death of 
John the Baptist, of the depravity of Herodias, of the 
hypocrisy of Annas, of the haughty spirit of Caiphas, 
etc. 

14. If, notwithstanding this array of proofs, we 
deny the authenticity of the gospels, we must then 
reject the classic literature of the Greeks and Romans, 
for no other book of antiquity possesses such extrinsic 
proofs of genuineness as the New Testament, and 
especially the Gospels. 1 

The essential ground upon which the Sacred 
Scriptures are controverted is intrinsic, as already 
stated ; that is, they recount miracles. But if one will 
deny every miracle on principle, he must become an 
atheist; and if, without radically contesting the pos¬ 
sibility of miracles, their place in the origin of 
Christianity be denied, then I know not where in the 

1 We find even in St. Augustine (B 54 — 430 ): Quae un- 
quam literae ullum habebunt pondus auctoritatis, si evange- 
licae, si apostolicae non habebunt ? De quo libro certum 
erit, cujus sit, si literae, quas Apostolorum dicit et tenet 
Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata et ab omnibus gentibus 
tanta eminentia declarata, utrum Apostolorum sint, incertum 
est? .... Platonis, Aristotelis, Ciceronis, Varronis, aliorum- 
que ejusmodi auctorum libros, umde noverunt homines, quod 
ipsorum sint, nisi eadem temporum sibimet succedentium, 
contestatione continua ? . . . . Quis tandem tanto furore cae- 
catur .... qui dicat, hoc mereri non potuisse Apostolorum 
Ecclesiam, tarn fidam, tarn numerosam fratrum concordium, 
ut eorum scripta fideliter ad posteros trajicerent cum eorum 
cathedras usque ad praesentes Episcopos certissima succes- 
sione servaverint cum hoc equalium cumque hominum scrip- 
tis, sive extra Ecclesia in sive in ipsa ecclesia, tanta facili¬ 
tate proveniat ? (St. Augustine : contra Faustum XXXIII, 6.) 



THE GOSPEES FROM AN HISTORICAE STANDPOINT, 125 

whole history of the human race they can be allowed 
a place. 

I will go even further. Suppose the cosmological 
and other proofs of the existence of God were not con¬ 
vincing, so that from a purely philosophical view¬ 
point the origin of the world remained an undecided 
question, an unsolved enigma; suppose that neither 
“dualists” (Christians) nor “monists” (pantheists 
and atheists) could give decisive reasons for their 
systems, the genuineness and authenticity of the 
gospels would in that case from an historical stand¬ 
point bring the question to a decision. Because, 
going back to the words of David Strauss: If the 
gospels are really historic documents, then the miracle 
cannot be eliminated from the history of the life of our 
kord; if, however, but one single miracle can be 
proved, then there is an extramundane, personal God; 
and if a single miracle, performed in verification of 
the divine mission of Jesus of Nazareth, be established, 
then the religion of Jesus Christ, Christianity, is 
sealed by God with the seal of truth. 

15. While, therefore, miracles offer no proof 
against the genuineness of the gospels, many intrinsic 
arguments of great importance in favor of their 
genuineness appear over and above those fully con¬ 
vincing extrinsic arguments already given. A few 
facts out of the abundant material furnished may 
suffice. 

Authors who wish to report earlier events or what 
is absolutely unauthentic, exactly as if they had been 
eye-witnesses, must either omit exact, chronological, 
topographical and other details, or expose themselves 
at every step, Rivy and Curtius Rufus, for instance, 


126 


THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


contain many inaccuracies in their account of earlier 
events. On this point how does it stand with the 
gospels ? 

They are rich in concrete passages of all kinds, 
everywhere betraying the eye-witness, nevertheless 
they harmonize perfectly with truth. 

In the twentieth chapter of St. Matthew, among 
others, we read of the owner of a vineyard, who, to 
cultivate it, hired day-laborers at one denarius. Now 
if we can learn in just what period a day’s wages had 
this value, we shall have an excellent mark for the age 
of the gospels. The amount of wages and the value of 
money have, as you know, undergone a great change. 
Now, in the time of Augustus, that is, shortly before 
the time of Jesus Christ, a day’s wages amounted to 
one denarius, while in the time of Diocletian, about 
300 years after Christ, money had so depreciated in 
value that twenty-five denarii formed the usual daily 
wage of a laborer. 1 This parable of the vineyard 
must have been written about the time of Augustus, 
or, at least, not very much later. 

In the gospel of St. John (XII, 3, 5) it is related 
that Mary Magdalen took “a pound of precious oint¬ 
ment of right spikenard,” and anointed the feet of 
Jesus. Judas was scandalized at this, and said: 
“Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred 
denarii and given to the poor?” This statement 
seems improbable : for at that time one denarius was 
worth about ninty-seven centimes; three hundred 
denarii would therefore have amounted to two 
hundred and ninety-one francs, certainly an immense 

1 Pawlicki, “Der Ursprung des Christenthums,” S. 132 
and 133. 


INTRINSIC EVIDENCE. 


127 


sum for one pound of ointment. Fortunately, a con¬ 
temporary of the evangelists, the heathen philosopher 
Pliny, has left an account of the value of one pound of 
balsam ointment at that time; the cheapest quality 
was twenty-five, and the finest three hundred denarii. 
Here again we have a remarkable harmony with 
historic facts! 

16. Up to the time of the destruction of the temple 
by Titus, about the year 70, .the Jews paid annually 
one didrachma as the temple tax, and this payment 
was of course considered a matter of duty and wholly 
praiseworthy. After the destruction of the temple, the 
Jews were compelled to pay this tribute to the temple 
of Jupiter Capitolinus, and it may easily be imagined 
how odious the didrachma became at this time. Now 
let us see in what light it appears in St. Matthew — 
whether this payment was universally looked upon as 
a religious duty, or as an apostacy. We read : 

“And when they were come to Capharnaum, they 
that received the didrachma, came to Peter and said 
to him: Doth not your master pay the didrachma? 
He said: Yes. And when he was come into the house, 
Jesus preventeth him, saying: What is thy opinion, 
Simon? The kings of the earth, of whom do they 
receive tribute or custom? Of their own children, or 
of strangers? And he said: Of strangers. Jesus said 
to him: Then the children are free. But that we may 
not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook: 
and that fish, which shall first come up, take: and 
when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a 
stater (two didrachmas) : take that, am’ give it to 
them for me and for thee. ’ ’ 1 


1 St. Matt., XVII, 23, 26. 


128 THF books of thf nkw lfstamfnt. 

Could an author who wrote after the destruction of 
the temple, and for people who lived after that time, 
speak so dispassionately and without further explana¬ 
tion, of the scandal which would be given by a refusal 
to pay the didrachma ? 

17. An apparent contradiction may be found in 
the assurance which the Jews gave Pilate: “It is not 
lawful for us to put any man to death,’’ 1 and their 
further assertion: “We have a law, and according to 
the law he ought to die, because he made himself the 
Son of God.” 2 Yet both are absolutely correct. The 
Mosaic law ratified capital punishment, it is true; but 
at the time of which there is question, the national 
independence of the Jews was already so restricted by 
the Romans, that they could no longer exercise the 
right over life and death. The statement of the orig¬ 
inal gospel is, therefore, archeologically correct in 
every detail, because the law of the Jews indeed com¬ 
manded capital punishment, but they themselves were 
forbidden by the Romans to put any man to death. 

But how does it fare in this respect with any of the 
thirty or so apocryphal gospels, — that, for instance, 
of Nicodemus? He makes the Jews say: “Our law 
forbids us to put any man to death,” 3 which was 
false. This gospel, moreover, places the Mount of 
Olives not far distant from Galilee, whereas it is in 
the vicinity of Jerusalem; and the apocryphal gospel 
of the Childhood has the Pharaohs flourishing in 
Memphis at the time that the Holy Family went into 
Egypt. Ries are short-lived; but eighteen centuries 

1 St. John, XVIII, 31. 

2 St. John, XIX, 7. 

3 Lex nostra mandat nobis non occidere quemquam. 


Apparent contradictions. 129 

have failed to prove an error in the four genuine 
Gospels. 

Of course, many attempts have been made to detect 
errors and contradictions in the evangelic histories; 
and many of these objections are very plausible. Thus, 
according to St. Duke (XVIII, 38), before the arrival 
of Jesus in Jericho one blind man called out: “Jesus, 
son of David, have mercy on me”; according to St. 
Matthew (XX, 30), two blind men called after the 
departure of Jesus from Jericho: “Jesus, son of David, 
have mercy on us.” According to St. Matthew 
(XXVII, 44), and St. Mark (XV, 32), events are re¬ 
ported in general: ‘ ‘And the thieves that were crucified 
with Jesus reviled him.” St. Duke (XXIII, 39), on 
the contrary, goes into details: “And one of those 
robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, etc.” 

Such differences and even apparent contradictions 
are found in the evangelists, and they give the exeg- 
esists some trouble; yet they invariably admit of a 
reasonable explanation, and, thus, instead of weaken¬ 
ing our faith in Holy Scriptures, rather serve to throw 
into a stronger light the simplicity, love of truth, and 
historic fidelity of the narrator. 1 

Now, my friend, recall those passages of -Scripture 
which we incidentally mentioned, for instance, that 
graphic narrative of the man born blind, who was 
healed; and then the whole history of the passion of 
Jesus Christ; and you will be obliged to confess that 
these are not fables which have been invented by men, 
but simple, faithful reports of eye-witnesses and con¬ 
scientious chroniclers. 

1 For a more explicit treatment of the subject, see Ham- 
merstein’s “Christenthum”, especially chapters V—VIII. 

9 


130 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

18. In conclusion, I beg leave to quote for you 
the beautiful words of the learned Protestant Bible 
commentator, Tischendorf: 

“The life of Jesus has become the focus of the 
religious questions of the present day. This is a mo¬ 
mentous fact. It is grounded on the recognition that 
Christianity is not founded upon Christ’s doctrines, 
but upon His Person. Every concept of Christianity 
which runs counter to this, mistakes the essential 
character of Christianity and is grounded on a mis¬ 
understanding. The Person of Jesus is the corner¬ 
stone on which the Church has been founded. To 
this Person is referred the doctrine of Jesus and the 
doctrine of His Apostles everywhere, and in the most 
definite manner; with the Person of Christ Christianity 
stands or falls. To divest this Person of its dignity, 
that dignity which the whole Church gives it under 
the name of Son of God, and still try to retain Chris¬ 
tian faith and the Christian Church, is a vain attempt, 
a hopeless delusion. . . . 

“Whence do we derive this knowledge of the life 
of Jesus? Almost exclusively from the writings of 
our four evangelists, in which the Divine Person that 
forms the cardinal point of Christian faith, and also 
the point of attack on the gospels, is essentially the 
same as in the epistles of St. Paul. . . . 

“We can but welcome the fact, that through the 
radical character of two well known modern bio¬ 
graphers of Jesus, the “Tlibinger inventor” (David 
Strauss), and the “Parisian pervert” (Renan), the 
contrasting attitudes of belief and unbelief towards the 
gospels and towards our Eord Himself have emerged 
into fuller light. It is light alone that leads to a 


toSCHENDORF. 


131 

decision. ... As regards truth, nothing is easier 
than to deceive, under the pretense of learned, honest 
investigation, those who are not in a position to study 
this greatest question of Christianity scientifically. . . . 
Hence so many who by their avocation in life cannot 
attain to a necessary knowledge of science, have been 
made to believe that the evidence regarding the life of 
Jesus, scientifically considered, is doubtful and worth¬ 
less. Nothing can be more glaring than the assertion 
that the earlier history of the Christian Church bears 
striking testimony against the genuineness of our 
Gospels, especially against that of St. John, in which 
to the scandal of an un-Christian age, the Theandric 
Person of our Redeemer appears more luminous than 
in the synoptic gospels (St. Matthew, St. Mark, and 
St. Luke). A study of this gospel has, on the con¬ 
trary, given us the fullest conviction of its genuineness. 

“It is the undeniable claim of the spirit of skepti¬ 
cism which has gained ascendency in the last hundred 
years, that, in learned men as well as in the unlearned, 
it has caused serious doubts, and, in some cases, 
open denial of the genuineness of the gospels, es¬ 
pecially that of St. John. Nevertheless, in the whole 
literature of antiquity, we find few examples of more 
convincing historical evidence than that in favor of 
our four gospels, provided our inquiries are conducted 
in an upright spirit. 

“Against unbelief, as rooted in modern frivolity, 
in that flesh-born emancipation of spirit which has 
repudiated all accountability to the Spirit of God, 
science has no weapons. And it is just this spirit of 
unbelief which finds its embodiment in Renan’s work 
— which gives it its power, its strength, its success: 


i32 THK BOOKS OF THK NFW TKSTAMKNT. 

there is no need of a learned discussion of this work; 
the flaunting shreds and tatters which it has borrowed 
from science hang too loosely upon its naked bones. 
But it is quite another matter with proofs scientifically 
brought forward against the life of Jesus, with historic 
attacks on the very headspring of the evangelic 
sources; against these we must enter our decided 
protest, on the ground of the most rigid scientific 
investigation. To Truth belongs the victory, in the 
name of God and by right of justice.” 



3- Prophecies and their Fulfilment. 

/ 

IyFTTFR OF FATHFR H. 

Dear Friend, your answer to my last letter gave me 
great pleasure; I see that we Christians may now call 
you ours. In the spiritual warfare of the present day 
you have courageously taken up arms on the side of 
Jesus Christ. 

I call you ours, even though you are a Protestant, 
and I, a Catholic priest; ours, truly, though not in 
the full sense of the word, for the dogmatic points of 
difference between a Catholic and a Protestant are 
undeniable. But I call you ours, inasmuch as you 
maintain with us Catholics, the divine mission and 
the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, the Redeemer of 
the world. 

Nevertheless, it is my duty to establish your convic¬ 
tions more firmly and from all points of view; for 
that purpose I should like to bring before you briefly 
the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. These 
prophecies will show you that the appearance of Jesus 
Christ was not, comet-like, unheralded in the history 
of the world, like that of Mohammed and other founders 
of religions, but that it was expected and predicted for 
hundreds and thousands of years,—hence that it corre¬ 
sponded to the plan, and, consequently, to the will of 
God. Indeed, how are we to regard the whole chosen 
nation other than as a preparation ordained by God for 
the Saviour of the world ? On every page of their sacred 
books we meet with references to the coming Messiah. 
(i33) 


134 PROPHECIES AND THEIR EUEEIEMENT. 

In considering these books I have the advantage 
of not being obliged to prove their antiquity and genu¬ 
ineness, as in our question we are very little concerned 
with archaeological controversies, for instance, whether 
this book or that was written seven or five hundred 
years before the time of Christ. As soon as it is proved, 
first, that the books containing the Messianic prophe¬ 
cies existed long before the appearance of Jesus of 
Nazareth ; secondly, that these prophecies have been 
fulfilled in Him and only in Him, and, moreover, in 
such a way as to exclude the possibility of 'an acci¬ 
dental or designed fulfilment by fraudulent means; 
I say, as soon as this is established, the truth of 
Christianity is proved. 

A mere glance at the history of the world will 
suffice to convince us that the pre-Christian existence 
of the books of the Old Testament is as undeniable as 
any other historical fact. They constitute, as it were, 
the soul of the Jewish people, and whoever would 
deny their existence before Christ could with as much 
security deny the existence of the Jewish people. 
Shortly after the year 300 B. C., the books of 
Moses were translated into Greek at Alexandria, 
and were followed in rapid succession by the other 
books of the Old Testament. This translation is known 
as the Septuagint. Moreover, in the New Testament 
a great many of the passages of the Old Testament 
are quoted in such a way by Christ, the evangelists, 
the apostles, the Pharisees, etc., that obviously, even 
from the most ancient times, the Old Testament must 
have been universally acknowledged. Finally, we 
need only consult the Jews of the present time to prove 
beyond doubt that they, with us, recognize each book 


thk protev angel. patriarchal period. 135 

as pre-Christian, and the Messianic prophecies con¬ 
tained in them as genuine, although these very pro¬ 
phecies are difficult for them to deal with. 

What is now to be done is to bring forward the 
various prophecies (in opposition to the Jews), and 
compare them with the account of the evangelists, 
which we have already proved genuine. A comparison 
will show you that no accident, no human conjecture 
or invention, but only the omniscience of God, could 
have opened to the prophets of the Old Testament, 
the distant events of the future as they afterwards 
actually took place. From this results, undoubtedly, a 
divine testimony both for the prophets and for the 
Messiah foretold by them. 

I shall now examine the most striking of these 
prophecies: 

1. Immediately after the Fall of man, a Redeemer, 
a Messiah was promised who was to come from the 
seed of a woman, and crush the serpent’s head. His 
mission was not merely one of teaching, but also one 
of expiation. He was to be God and man at the 
same time, as we have seen; man, that He might 
suffer, God, that the atonement of His sufferings might 
be of infinite value. How this was fulfilled in Jesus 
of Nazareth needs no further development. 

2. The posterity of Eve is pointed out as the 
soil from which the Redeemer is to spring forth: After 
Noah, it will be more narrowly confined to the pos¬ 
terity of Sem. ‘ ‘ Blessed be the Ford God of Sem; be 
Canaan his servant. ’ ’ 1 And from the posterity of Sem 
came the Redeemer. 


1 Genesis, IX, 26. 


136 PROPHECIES AND THEIR EUEFIRMENT. 

3. But the ' limits became even more restricted 
when, some centuries later, the promise was confined 
to Abraham, one of the descendants of Sem. ‘ ‘ I will, ’ ’ 
said God to him, when as yet the Jewish nation had 
no existence, “I will make thee a great nation, and 
I will bless thee and magnify thy name and thou 
shalt be blessed. I will bless them that bless thee, 
and curse them that curse thee; in thee shall all the 
kindreds of the earth be blessed. ’ ? 1 And they were blessed 
in Jesus of Nazareth, the descendant of Abraham. 

4. God even imposed upon Abraham a command 
which clearly prefigures the future sacrificial atone¬ 
ment of the Son of God. He says to him: “Take 
thy only-begotten son, Isaac, whom thou lovest, and 
go into the land of vision (Hebrew: to Moriah, the 
name of the temple-mount in Jerusalem on which the 
temple was subsequently built); there thou shalt offer 
him as a holocaust, upon one of the mountains, which 
I will show thee. ’ 5 2 

Now Abraham on reaching the spot proceeded to 
obey; he laid his tenderly beloved son upon the altar, 
and stretching forth his hand to consummate the awful 
sacrifice, “ Behold an angel of the L,ord from Heaven 
called him, Abraham ! Abraham ! And he answered : 
Here I am. And he said to him : Tay not thy hand 
upon the boy, neither do anything to him ; now I 
know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy 
only-begotten son for my sake. Abraham lifted up 
his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst 
the briars, sticking fast by the horns, which he took 
and offered for a holocaust instead of his son.” 

1 Genesis, XII, 2, 3. 

2 Genesis, XXII, 2. 


ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB. 


*37 


“The angel of the L,ord called to Abraham a second 
time from heaven saying: By my own self I have sworn, 
saith the Tord : because thou hast done this thing, 
and hast not spared thine only-begotten son for my 
sake, I will bless thee and I will multiply thy seed, 
as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by 
the sea-shore; thy seed shall possess the gates of 
their enemies and in thy seed shall all the nations of the 
earth he blessed.” 1 The fulfilment of this prefiguration 
in the sacrifice on Golgotha in which ‘ ‘ God also has 
not spared His only-begotten Son ’ ’ requires no further 
explanation. 

5. Tater, the promise was limited to the posterity 
of Isaac; to him also God said: “In thy seed shall 
all the nations of the earth be blessed, ’ ’ 2 and they were 
blessed. 

6. The next branch in the genealogical tree 
brings us to the patriarch Jacob. Dying, he be¬ 
queathed the following promise as a testament, to his 
fourth son, Juda: “Juda, thee shall thy brethren 
praise: thy hands shall be on the necks of thy enemies: 
the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee. Juda 
is a lion’s whelp; to the prey, my son, thou art gone 
up : resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a 
lioness; who shall rouse him? The sceptre shall not he 
taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he 
come that is to he sent, and he shall he the expectation of 
nations.”* Such is the translation according to the 
Vulgate. The Hebrew text as the Jews have it at 
present, reads thus : “The sceptre shall not pass from 

1 Genesis, XXII, 15, 18. 

2 Genesis, XXVI, 4. 

3 Genesis, XBIX, 8, 10. 


138 PROPHECIES AND THEIR EUEEIEMENT. 

Juda nor the rod of command from his feet until 
the man of peace comes, and his will be the obedience 
of the people. ’ ’ That this refers to the Messiah has 
always been maintained even by the Jews. 

Now when did the sceptre pass from Juda? This 
period once determined, we can fix the limit of time 
in which the Messiah was to appear. The sceptre had 
not passed away when, almost a thousand years before 
Christ, the kingdom of Israel separated from the king¬ 
dom of Juda, and later disappeared as a people from 
the face of the earth. Nor had it passed away when 
about 585 B. C. the kingdom of Juda was led into the 
Babylonian captivity ; for Juda still retained its national 
existence, and again secured its independence after the 
people’s return from exile. That the sceptre had de¬ 
parted from Juda at the time of the Machabees cannot 
be definitely determined; these leaders of the people, 
were not, it is true, of the tribe of Juda, but of Devi; 
nevertheless, the kingdom of Juda still maintained its 
integrity, the Tevites being considered but a part of it. 
At what period, then, had the sceptre certainly passed 
from Juda? Beyond any doubt, at the time when Titus 
destroyed the temple, 70 A. D., and sold the Jews as 
slaves in different parts of the world. At this time the 
sceptre had assuredly departed; and the Messianic pro¬ 
phecy just quoted, must, therefore, have been ful¬ 
filled. 

Who could this Messiah have been if not Jesus of 
Nazareth? 

7. Passing over a period of several centuries we 
come to David, the author of most of the Psalms, 
the powerful king of the tribe of Juda (1055 — 101 5 
B. C. according to the usual acceptation). He sketches 


THK PSAXMS. ISAIAS. 


139 


a picture for us, even to minutest details, the realiza¬ 
tion of which appears in Jesus of Nazareth. He 
clearly characterizes him as God in these words: “The 
Tord hath said to me : Thou art my son, this day have 
I begotten thee ”; 1 and ‘ ‘ The Tord said to my Tord, 
Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies 
thy footstool.” 2 I have already pointed out 3 how 
Jesus Himself perplexed the Pharisees with these 
words, the Messianic character of which they did not 
deny. 

In the same Psalm the priesthood of the Messiah 
appears ; we read : ‘ ‘ The Tord had sworn and lie will 
not repent: Thou art a priest forever according to the 
order of Melchizedek. ” 4 But with this glorious pas¬ 
sage is given at the same time the image of the Cruci¬ 
fied. “ But I am a worm and no man, the reproach of 
men; and the outcast of the people. All they that 
saw me have laughed me to scorn ; they have spoken 
with the lips and wagged the head. He hoped in the 
Tord, let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in 
him. ” 5 ‘ ‘They have pierced my hands and my feet; 
they have numbered all my bones. And they looked 
and stared upon me. They parted my garments 
amongst them and upon my vesture they cast lots. ’ ’ 6 

8. With similar clearness Isaias, about 700 B. C., 
describes the suffering Saviour : ‘ ‘ And he shall grow 
up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a 

1 Psalm II, 7. 

2 Psalm CIX, 1. 

3 Cf. p. 87. 

4 Psalm CIX, 4; (Hebr. CX, 4.) 

5 Psalm XXI, 7, 9; cf. St. Matt., XXVII, 43. 

6 Psalm XXI, 17, 19; cf. St. John, XIX, 23, 24. 


140 PROPHECIES AND THEIR FULFILMENT. 

thirsty ground : there is no beauty in him, nor comeli¬ 
ness: and we have seen him, and there was no sight¬ 
liness in him that we should be desirous of him: 
Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sor¬ 
rows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look 
was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we 
esteemed him not. 

‘ ‘ Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried 
our sorrows. And we have thought him as it were a 
leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But 
he was wounded for our iniquities , he was bruised for 
our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him , 
and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep 
have gone astray, every one has turned aside into his 
own way: and the Lord hath laid upon him the in¬ 
iquity of us all. He was offered because it was his own 
will; and he opened not his mouth; he shall be led 
as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a 
lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his 
mouth. . . Therefore will I distribute to him very 
many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, 
because he hath delivered his soul unto death and was 
reputed with the wicked; and he hath borne the sins 
of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.” 1 

The divine and human nature of the glorious char¬ 
acter of the Redeemer also appears in Isaias. 

“Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let 
the clouds rain the just; let the earth be opened, and 
bud forth a Saviour, and let justice spring up 
together. ’ ’ 2 

1 Isaias, Dili; cf. St. Mark, XV, 28; St. Luke, XXII, 37; 
XXIII, 34. 

2 Isaias, XLV, 8. 


PTAVIUS JOSKPHUS. TACITUS. 14 J 

“And there shall come forth a rod out of the root 
of Jesse (the father of King David), and a flower shall 
rise up out of his root, and the spirit of the Ford shall 
rest upon him. . . And justice shall be the girdle of 
his loins: and faith the girdle of his reins. The wolf 
shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie 
down with the kid. . . In that day shall the root of 
Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him 
the gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be 
glorious. ’ ’ 1 

“Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened; and 
the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.” 2 — “For 
a Child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the 
government is upon his shoulders; and his name shall 
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, 
the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace. 
His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no 
end of peace: He shall sit upon the throne of David, 
and upon his kingdom to establish it and strengthen 
it with judgment and with justice from henceforth 
and forever. ’ ’ 3 

9. In the minds of Jews and heathens, to whom 
these prophecies were known, such characteristics 
might indeed have evoked an image of a worldly 
conqueror. Flavius Josephus 4 gives us the conviction 
of the Jews: “About this time one of their nation was 
to rule over the earth.” Tacitus 5 says: “Many were 

1 Isaias, XI, 1 ff. This rod from the root of Jesse is not 
David, for, when Isaias prophesied, David had been dead 
three hundred years. 

$ Isaias, XXXV, 5. 

8 Isaias, IX, 6 , 7. 

4 Bell. Jud., VII, 31. 

5 Histor., V, 13. 


142 


PROPHECIES AND THEIR FUEFIEtaENT. 


convinced that the Bast would rise up and the highest 
power be taken possession of by Judea”; and Sueto¬ 
nius 6 : “It was the current and firm opinion through¬ 
out the Bast that fate had decreed that, at this time, 
one should come from Judea who would usurp the 
power.” Vergil (70—19 b. c.), in the fourth eclogue, 
writes in his appeal to the Cumaean Sybil: “The Vir¬ 
gin returns, ... a new sprig descends from heaven. 
Be gracious to the new-born child, with whom that 
iron race expires, and a golden race is established in 
the - whole world, be gracious, O chaste Bucina! 
even now thy Apollo rules.” Unconsciously this 
reminds us of the words which Isaias wrote seven 
centuries earlier: “Behold the virgin shall conceive, 
and bear a son, and his name shall be called 
Bmmanuel. ’ ’ 2 

6 In Vespas., c. 4 . 

2 The words of Vergil applied in naive flattery to the 
obscure son of Pollio, are in the original: 

4 . Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas ; 

5 . Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo. 

“Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturina regna ; 

“Jam nova progenies coelo demittitur alto. 

In modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum 
Desinet ac toto surget gens aurea mundo, 

10 . Casta, fave, Eucina; tuus jam regnat Apollo 
Teque adeo decus hoc aevi, te consule, inibit. 

Pollio, et incipient magni procedere menses; 

Te duce, si qua manent, sceleris vestigia nostri 
Irrita perpetuo solvent formidine terras. 

15 . Ille deum vitam accipiet, divisque videbit 
Permixtos heroas, et ipse videbitur illis, 

Pacatumque reget patriis virtutibus orbem. . . . 

49 . Cara deum soboles, magnum Jovis incrementum ! 

50 . Adspice convexo nutantem pondere mundum, 


EZECHIEL. DANIEE. 


143 


10. We now come to the prophet Jeremias (fl. 
600 b. c.) The longed-for Messiah is described as a 
king. “Behold the days come, saith the L,ord, and 
I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall 
reign and shall be wise: and shall execute judgment 
and justice in the earth. In those days shall Juda be 
saved and Israel shall dwell confidently. ’ ’ 1 

11. Through Ezechiel (fl. 600 b. c.) God says: 
“And I will set up one shepherd over them, even my 
servant David: He shall feed them, and he shall be 
their shepherd. And I the Tord will be their God: 
and my servant David, the prince in the midst of 
them : I the L,ord have spoken it. ’ ’ 2 Here again it is 
self-evident that David, the king, then long deceased, 
was not meant. 

12. To this same period (600 or 500 b . c .) belongs 
the celebrated prediction of Daniel, perhaps the most 
interesting and the most striking of all the prophecies. 

“In the first year of Balthazar, king of Babylon 
(555 b. c., according to the usual chronology), Daniel 
saw in a dream a vision. . . And four great beasts 
different one from another came up out of the sea. . . 
After this I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo ! 
one like the Son of man came with the clouds of 
heaven, and he came even to the ancient of days: and 
they presented him before him. And he gave him 

Terrasque tractusque maris coelumque profundum 

Adspice, venturo laetentur ut omnia saeclo! 

Virgil, Eclog. 4. 

With regard to the other traditions current among various 
peoples, cf. Liiken’s “Die Traditionen des Menschen- 
geschlechts.” 

1 Jer., XXIII, 5, 6. 

2 Ezech., XXXIV, 23, 24. 


144 PROPHECIES AND THEIR EUEFIRMEnT. 

power and glory and a kingdom: and all the peoples, 
tribes and tongues shall serve him : his power is an 
everlasting power, and shall not be-taken away: and 
his kingdom that shall not be destroyed. . . 

“I went near to one of them that stood by, and 
asked the truth of him, concerning all these things. 
And he told me the interpretation of the words and 
instructed me: These four great beasts are four great 
kingdoms which shall rise out of the earth. ’ ’ (The 
Assyria-Chaldean, the Media-Persian, the Macedonian 
of Alexander the Great, and the Roman.) 1 ‘But the 
saints of the most high God shall take the kingdom, 
and they shall possess the kingdom forever and ever 
. . . that the kingdom, the power and the greatness of 
the kingdom, under the whole heaven, may be given to 
the people of the saints of the most High; whose king¬ 
dom is an everlasting kingdom, and all kings shall 
serve him, and shall obey him.” 2 

“In the first year of Darius the son of Assuerus, of 
the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the kingdom of 
the Chaldeans: In the first year of his reign (537 b. 
c.), I Daniel understood by books the number of the 
years, concerning which the word of the Tord came 
to Jeremias the prophet, that seventy years should be 
accomplished of the desolation of Jerusalem (the 
Babylonian captivity). And I set my face to the Tord 
my God to pray and make supplication with fasting 
and sack-cloth and ashes. ’ ’ 3 

And God heard Daniel, and granted his prayer, 
inasmuch as he announced a higher deliverance than 
from the Babylonian captivity. He sends the angel 

1 Cf. Daniel, VIII, 20 ff. and II, 37 ff. 

2 Daniel, VII. 

3 Daniel, IX, 1, 3. 


PUPFIPMENP OF DANIELS PROPHECY. 145 

Gabriel, who says: “Daniel, I am now come forth to 
teach thee, and that thou mightest understand. From 
the beginning of thy prayers the word came forth; and 
I am come to show it to thee, because thou art a man 
of desires: therefore do thou mark the word and under¬ 
stand the vision. 

“Seventy weeks 1 are shortened upon thy people and 
thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and 
sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; 
and everlasting justice may be brought, and vision 
and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the Saint of saints 
may be anointed. Know thou, therefore, and take 
notice: that from the going forth of the word to build up 
Jerusalem again unto Christ the prince, there shall be 
seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall 
be built again, and the walls, in troublesome times. 
And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: And 
the people that shall deny him shall not be his 
(Hebrew: and there shall not be for him). And a 
people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy 
the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall 
be waste; and after the end of the war the appointed 
desolation.« And he shall confirm the covenant with 
many, in one week: and in the half of the week the 
victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in 
the temple the abomination of desolation: and the 

1 Jews, Christians, and rationalists agree that the weeks 
here mean weeks of years, just as in Peviticus, XXV, 8. 
Besides, weeks of days would be absolutely irreconcilable 
with verses 2 and 25—27 of this chapter. — I follow here as 
usual the text of the Vulgate, as it offers the best guarantee; 
the modern Hebrew text (cf. Rohling, Catechism of the 19th 
Century, p. 3) harmonizes almost entirely with it. 

10 


146 PROPHECIES AND THEIR FULFILMENT. 

desolation shall continue even to the consummation 
and to the end. ’ ’ 1 

Such is the prophecy. And what is its fulfilment? 
The four great kingdoms of the world successively 
prevailed — the Assyria-Chaldean, the Media-Persian, 
the Macedonian, and the Roman. And with the last 
the “Sou of Man” appeared (the “Stone” in Daniel, 
II, 34). And God set up for the “Son of Man a king¬ 
dom that shall never be destroyed,” 2 the Church. 
“And he gave him power and honor and a kingdom> 
and all nations, tribes, and tongues shall serve him.” 3 

And when was this Son of Man to come? When 
were the transgressions to be finished, sin to have an 
end, iniquity to be abolished, everlasting justice to be 
brought, and vision and prophecy fulfilled? When 
was Christ the Prince to appear? The reckoning 
begins with “a word”, an edict, that Jerusalem should 
be rebuilt by the returning Jews. There are four 
such edicts: of the years 536, 518, 457, 444, before 
Christ; the third, of the year 457, was fraught with 
the most serious consequences; let us examine this in 
detail. From 457 on, seven weeks of years (49 years) 
were to pass, “and the streets and walls were to be 
rebuilt;” in the year 408, Jerusalem was restored by 
Nehemias. From that time until Christ the Prince, 
62 weeks (434 years) were to elapse: this brings us to 
the year 26 after Christ. It is an actual fact that 
about this period Jesus of Nazareth began his public 
mission. After this time Christ the Prince was to be 
put to death. 


1 Daniel, IX, 22, 27. 

2 Daniel, II, 44. 

3 Daniel, VII, 14 (cf. above p. 144). 


THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 147 

The seventieth week now begins (26 — 35 after 
Christ). In the middle of this week (in the year 29 
after Christ according to the usual acceptation) Jesus 
was put to death, and with His sacrifice on Calvary 
the new covenant was established; the victim and the 
sacrifice of the old covenant were thus done away 
with, in accordance with the prediction that this 
should happen in the week which followed after the 
seven and sixty-two weeks. 

We take this third edict of the year 457, as our 
basis. The other three fall in the years 536, 518, and 
444. If preference be given to any of these later 
edicts, the Messiah must be looked for at most 79 years 
earlier, or 13 years later. But where in the whole 
world was any one to be found at this time except 
Jesus of Nazareth, in whose personality the character¬ 
istics of the Messiah were blended in harmony, char¬ 
acteristics which are met with on every page of 
the sacred writings of the Old Testament, and which 
the Jews as well as ourselves find in the words of 
Daniel ? 

Finally, how striking is the portrayal of the 
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus! And then the 
abomination of desolation in holy places which is to 
be the end! Shortly before its fulfilment, the pro¬ 
phecy was renewed by Christ in the words: “When 
therefore you shall see the abomination of the desola¬ 
tion, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, 
standing in the holy place; etc.’ 71 and: “The days 
shall come upon thee (Jerusalem): thy enemies shall 
cast a trench about thee, and compass thee around, 
and straiten thee on every side; and beat thee flat to 

1 St. Matt., XXIV, 15 . 


148 PROPHECIES AND THEIR FULFILMENT. 

the ground, and thy children who are in thee; and 
they shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone: 
because thou hast not known the time of thy visita¬ 
tion.” 1 

And these days came upon Jerusalem, and so 
frightful were they, that probably they have no equal 
in the history of the world. Flavius Josephus tells us 
that within three months 115,000 dead bodies were 
carried out of the city, and 600,000 were cast over the 
city walls; the number who died during the siege 
amounted to 1,000,000; 97,000 were sold as prisoners 
in all parts of the world. From that time to the 
present day, the Jews wander about, without temple, 
without sanctuary, without sacrifice; for the only 
temple in which they could offer sacrifice according to 
the command of God, 2 the temple at Jerusalem, was 
destroyed. The Jews have only synagogues, that is, 
places of assembly for prayer; they have no temple or 
place of sacrifice; and up to the present day, in spite 
of all their wealth, they have not succeeded in build¬ 
ing another temple or rebuilding the old one, and thus 
reestablishing the national sanctuary to which they 
are obliged to make a pilgrimage once a year. Julian 
the Apostate, in his hatred of Christ attempted to 
rebuild the temple, in order to falsify the prophecies 
of Judaism and Christianity. Ammianus Marcellinus, 
the pagan historian, tells us how he succeeded: 
“When Alypius assiduously undertook the work, and 
the Governor of the province supported him in it, 
balls of fire constantly rose in the vicinity of the foun¬ 
dation, burned some of the laborers, and rendered the 

1 St. Luke, XIX, 43, 44. 

2 Cf. II. Paralip. VI, 5, 6; St. John, IV, 20. 


AGGEUS. MAEACHIAS. 


49 


place inaccessible; and as the elements opposed them 
so violently they were obliged to desist from their pur¬ 
pose. ’ ’ 1 

Nor have they even to the present day succeeded 
in restoring the only place of sacrifice permissible to 
the Jewish people. 

13. I pass over a long series of prophecies, and 
mention only two more — those of Aggeus and Mala- 
chias, which, like that of Daniel, relate to the temple 
of Jerusalem. 

The Jews under the guidance of Zorobabel had 
returned to Jerusalem and had already restored a part 
of the temple about 518 b. c. But the ancients of the 
nation who had seen Solomon’s temple were grieved 
that the new temple did not equal the old one in 
beauty. 

“In the seventh month, the word of the Lord came 
by the hand of Aggeus the prophet, saying: Speak to 
Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, the governor of Juda, 
and to Jesus, the son of Josedec the high priest, and to 
the rest of the people, saying: Who is left among you, 
that saw this house in its first glory ? and how do you 
see it now? Is it not in comparison to that as nothing 
in your eyes ? 

“Yet now take courage, O Zorobabel, saith the 
Lord: and take courage, O Jesus the son of Josedec, 
the high priest, and take ye courage all ye people of 
the land, saith the Lord of hosts: and perform (for I 
am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts) the word that 
I covenanted with you, when you came out of the 
land of Egypt: and my spirit shall be in the midst of 
you: fear not. For thus saith the Lord of Hosts: 

1 Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII, 1. 


150 PROPHECIES AND THEIR FUEFIEMENT. 

11 Yet one little while and I will move the heaven, and 
the earth and the sea , and the dry land. And I will move 
all nations: and the desired of all nations shall come: and 
I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. 

. . . Great shall be the glory of this last house , more than 
of the first , saith the Lord of Hosts , and in this place L 
will give peace. 1 

u Behold , I send my angel and he shall prepare the 
way before my face. And presently the Lord whom you 
seek and the angel of the Testament whom you desire , shall 
come to his temple. Behold, he cometh , saith the Lord of 
Hosts .” 2 

And He has come, He whom the Old Testament 
had sought, for whom all nations had longed: Jesus of 
Nazareth, the Son of God. He has entered into the 
temple of Zorobabel, and has glorified it far beyond 
the temple of Solomon. All nations have been moved, 
and there is scarcely one upon the broad earth, which 
does not count among its members the faithful, who 
adore Jesus of Nazareth as their God and L,ord, their 
Redeemer, their High Priest, their Teacher, and their 
King. 

14. The prophecies, moreover, added by Jesus 
Himself to those of the Old Testament, are being ful¬ 
filled before our eyes up to the present hour. 

When Mary Magdalene anointed His feet and was 
censured for it by Judas, Jesus said: “Amen, I say to 
you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the 
whole world, that also which she hath done shall be 
told for a memory of her. ’ ’ 3 And the gospel has been 

1 Agg., II, 2, 10. 

2 Malac., Ill, 1. 

3 St. Matt., XXVI, 13. 


PROPHECIES OF JESUS CHRIST. 151 

✓ 

preached in the whole world, and Magdalene’s act is 
told in memory of her. 

Notwithstanding the great success Jesus promised 
the apostles, He prophesied to them: Amen I say to 
you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the 
Son of Man come. ’ ’ 1 

And even now there dwell among us countless 
descendants of Israel, plainly distinguishable as such, 
who have not been converted to the gospels. More¬ 
over, in Palestine, the I^and of Promise, missionaries 
are constantly demanded. 

Christ prophesied: “Heaven and earth shall pass 
away, but my word shall not pass away.’’ 2 

And to the present day His words endure in all 
their pristine strength, and are spreading farther and 
farther over the entire globe. 

After all these miracles related by the gospels 
regarding Christ, after all these prophecies of the Old 
Testament which were fulfilled in him, after all the 
blessings which the religion founded by Him eighteen 
centuries ago has brought to us, it cannot be affirmed, 
so it seems to me, that we too readily or too unscien¬ 
tifically accept Christ, when we acknowledge with 
Peter: “L,ord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the 
words of eternal life. And we have believed, and have 
known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” 3 


1 St. Matt., X, 23. 

2 St. Mark, XIII, 31. 

3 St.John, VI, 69, 70. 



4. Objections. 

Edgar’s Ekttkr. 

I thank you heartily, Reverend Father, for your 
last letter containing an exposition^ the Messianic 
prophecies. I confess they are overwhelmingly strong, 
especially when considered as a whole. Of course, 
certain objections may be urged against one or 
other of these prophecies, just as against the miracles 
of Christ. But, if we look back over the whole Jew¬ 
ish nation with its mass of sacred writings, as grad¬ 
ually developed in the course of 1500 years; if we study 
this nation in connection with Jesus of Nazareth, the 
number of his miracles, the divinity of his doctrine, 
the strong faith of his numerous martyrs, the wonder¬ 
ful and constantly increasing promulgation of his 
doctrine, and its fruits rich in blessings; finally, if we 
consider the ruins of the chosen people, who, accord¬ 
ing to the prophecy of Jesus Christ, are to remain un¬ 
converted until the approach of the Final Judgment, 
and thus involuntarily bear testimony to the truth of 
Christianity, — then, it seems to me, one must be 
wilfully blind who does not acknowledge in Christi¬ 
anity the religion which God himself has verified and 
transmitted to the human race. 

I am, therefore, a believing Christian. 

But pardon me, if I add, that I am as yet only a 
neophyte, and require enlightenment on various points; 
I have written them on separate sheets, and beg you 
to give the solution under each question as it stands. 

(152) 


JUDAISM. 


153 


I. Judaism. — According to the Christian idea, 
Judaism was the true religion until the time of Christ. 
It is not so now. How can that which was once true, 
become false ? 

Moreover, Judaism is the 'primitive religion; hence 
the Jews have a certain right to persevere in it. 

Fathkr H’s Answkr : — Before 1870, the follow¬ 
ing was true: The French form of government was 
monarchical; after the dethronement of Napoleon, this 
assertion was no longer true. I, too, ask, how can 
that which was once true, become false? You will 
readily find the answer. 

Similarly: Before Christ the Jews could with truth 
assert: “The Messiah will come.” This assertion 
would now be false, we must now say: “The Messiah 
has come.” 

After the foregoing exposition of the Messianic 
prophecies and their fulfilment, it is unnecessary for 
me to prove that He has come. The Jews themselves, 
in as far as they are still orthodox, find the greatest 
difficulty in dealing with these prophecies. Having 
acknowledged their Messianic character from antiquity, 
they are compelled to admit that the Messiah must 
have come before the sceptre passed from Juda, and 
before Zorobabel’s temple was destroyed. They have 
taken refuge, therefore, in the assumption that He was 
born in the year in which the temple was destroyed, 
but on account of the sins of the people, was taken by 
God to a secret place. 

You add in your letter: The Jews have a certain 
right to persevere in their religion as the primitive one. 

I prefer to answer this by a comparison. The 
caterpillar, or larva, has just the same right to remain 


154 PROPHECIES AND THEIR EUEEIEMENT. 

always a larva, and never become a butterfly. But 
would you agree with the larva, were it to assert: “I, 
the larva, am the real butterfly; that beautiful little 
creature with four wings, fluttering from flower to 
flower, has degenerated from the primitive nature of 
a butterfly; I, the larva, have kept it” ? 

Certainly not. As the destiny of the larva is to 
become a butterfly, so Judaism" at the appearance of 
the Messiah was destined to pass into Christianity. 
And as it would be a sign of degeneracy, if the larva 
did not within a certain time become a butterfly, so 
also the Jews, having rejected and crucified the Mes¬ 
siah who came in the fulness of time, have degenerated 
from their vocation. The Jewish religion, moreover, 
in the loss of its temple and sacrifice, lost its very life- 
principle ; it is now, not even the undeveloped larva, 
but only the empty shell, because its living principle 
has soared high in the air as a butterfly. 

The Jews have no right whatever to cling to the 
empty shell of their former splendor. Only ignorance 
of the true state of things can excuse individuals 
among them in any possible way. 

II. Mohammedanism. — Edgar’s Objection : Mo¬ 
hammedanism has had almost as great a propagation 
as Christianity; its followers are convinced of its truth, 
perhaps almost as firmly as we Christians are of the 
truth of Christianity. What authorizes us to hold Chris¬ 
tianity as the true and the only true religion, and to 
declare Mohammedanism, as well as Buddhism and 
other religions false ? 

Father H’s Answer : — Against this difficulty 
I have much to bring forward. 

1 Cf. Hammerstein’s “ Christenthum ”, chapter XIII, 
pp. 194, 227. 


MOHAMMEDANISM. 


155 


1. You must not by any means assume that we 
Christians consider all other religions nothing but 
error; there is, indeed, no religion which does not pos¬ 
sess some truths. For instance, the Mussulman be¬ 
lieves in one God, who rewards the good and punishes 
the wicked; he believes in the immortality of the soul; 
in fact, he believes the greater part of the revelations 
of Judaism and Christianity, and has drawn largely 
from them, for Mohammed lived, as is well known, 
six centuries after Christ. And if there is in Moham¬ 
medanism much that is morally good, it is due prin¬ 
cipally to those universal fundamental truths. 

But we are not dealing with universals; the ques¬ 
tion is this: Who is right in the points of difference, 
Mohammed or Christ ? 

2. Christ has been testified to by all the prophecies 
of the Old Testament, which are fulfilled in Him, and 
in Him only. This is not true of Mohammed. 

3. Christ performed countless miracles; of Moham¬ 
med no miracles are historically attested. 

4. Christ led a poor, humble, and in every respect 
a virtuous life, and as He had prophesied, sacrificed 
Himself on the tree of the cross for the redemption of 
the whole world. Mohammed , by marrying a rich 
widow, attained wealth and was enabled to pursue his 
ambitious plans, nor did he die for the truth of his 
teachings. ’ Besides Khadijah, he had ten wives, and 
several slaves in the same relation. Fe.eling death 
draw near, he cried out: “Hell flames up, sedition 
approaches as the last part of a dark night. But before 
God you can lay nothing to my charge; I have per¬ 
mitted only what the Koran permitted, and forbidden 
only what the Koran forbade.” — How different are 
the seven words of Jesus on the Cross! 


156 PROPHECIES AND THEIR FUEFIEMENT. 

5. The doctrine of Jesus Christ is pure —no one has 
ever been able to prove any error or immorality in it; 
Mohammed’’s doctrine panders to sensuality, promises 
a heaven of the basest earthly enjoyment, and preaches 
hatred against those professing other creeds. 

6. The religion of Jesus Christ is propagated by the 
power of conviction; countless martyrs, from the time 
of Nero up to the late Chinese-Eranco war, have laid 
down their lives for the truth of its doctrines. Instinct 
with life, as in the beginning, it is still spreading over 
China, Japan, Africa, etc.; and poor, defenseless mis¬ 
sionaries are the instruments of this great work. 
Mohammed’s religion was and is propagated by the 
sword, and in this Mohammed himself set the 
example. 

7. Christianity has renovated the world, and, es- 
•pecially in doing away with slavery, has fraternized 
the nations by a new international law; Mohammedan¬ 
ism has depopulated the once flourishing regions of 
Asia Minor, Turkey, and Northern Africa, and 
thrown them back into barbarism. Though six cen¬ 
turies younger than Christianity, it is already falling 
into decline, and is maintained only through the 
mutual jealousy of the Christian nations, whose fleets 
and armies command the globe. 

The difference, therefore, lies in this: the Moham¬ 
medan believes a particular doctrine without sufficient 
proofs; while the Christian accepts the truth of the 
special Christian doctrines only upon good proofs, and 
indeed upon the foundation of proofs of various kinds. 

Even in the early ages of the Christian era, two 
centuries and a half before Mohammed, St. Chrysostom 
(347—407) wrote: “What is it that even the heathens 
must unquestionably admit has been achieved by 


ST. CHRYSOSTOM. 


157 


Christ? They must admit that Christ has established 
the community of Christians, has established the 
Church upon the whole earth. From this fact, we 
prove the power of Christ, and confirm His divinity, 
and may with consolation say that it is not the work 
of a mere man to lay hold of the whole earth, land and 
sea, to call men to things so great, to free them from 
their corrupt morals, to divert them from their perverse 
ways. Without arms, without armies, through the 
instrumentality of eleven men, unknown, humble, un¬ 
educated, unskilled, poor, destitute, defenseless, with¬ 
out shoes, poorly clad, He has freed the whole human 
race. And what is the outcome ? He has so influenced 
all nations, that their thoughts are fixed not merely on 
the present, but directed to the future. He has an¬ 
nihilated their corrupt primitive laws, uprooted their 
carnal customs, established a new life, eradicated their 
evil inclinations, and strengthened them for hardships 
and misery. And while He was’engaged in this work, 
He was persecuted and pursued by all, and finally 
condemned to an ignominious death on the cross. 

“And yet His preachings thrive from day to day, 
and win disciples, although by following His lead men 
deliver themselves to the most violent persecutions. 
By this preaching men who have been wilder than 
wolves, become as mild as lambs, and turn their 
thoughts to immortality, to the resurrection, and to 
unspeakable treasures. And these wonderful phenom¬ 
ena are seen not only in cities, but in isolated islands 
and far-distant colonies. Not only private individuals 
and magistrates, but even crowned heads bow in faith 
to the Crucified. ’ ’ 1 

1 Chrysostomus, Quod Christus sit Deus. Migne gr. t. 
48, p. 813. 


158 PROPHECIES AND THEIR FULFILMENT. 

» 

St. Augustine (354—430), speaking of Christ and 
the Church, says: “Even if we had not the testimonies 
of the prophets, who would not be moved to believe 
that a divine revelation had suddenly been given to 
the world, when we see how this world now adores 
the one true God; when we see how it has abandoned, 
annihilated the false gods, demolished their temples, 
or turned them to other purposes, and rooted out the 
most flagrant superstitious customs? And that all 
this has been brought about by one man, scorned, 
imprisoned, bound, scourged, stripped, scoffed at, 
crucified, and put to death, and His apostles, simple, 
ignorant fishermen, whom He chose to promulgate His 
doctrines, announce His gospels, and preach His resur¬ 
rection as they had witnessed it! As they were faith¬ 
ful to the truth even unto death, and struggled, not 
returning evil for evil, but in patience, not putting to 
death but dying, they have conquered. Thus has the 
whole world been won to the faith, — thus have the 
hearts of mortals been converted to the gospels, the 
hearts of men and women, of children and adults, of 
the strong and the weak, of the cultured and the un¬ 
lettered, of the wise and the simple, of the noble and 
the common, of the high and the low; and the Church, 
spread among all nations, has grown to such propor¬ 
tions that no sect, no form of error, has ever risen 
against this Catholic Church which has not endeav¬ 
ored to mask itself under the name of Christian truth. 
How would it have been possible for the Crucified to 
effect all this, had not God Himself been united with 
the humanity in Him ?” 1 

1 Augustinus, De Fide, cap. 7; cf. Hettinger, Apologie 
II, p. 447. 


CHRISTIANITY THE ONEY TRUE RELIGION. 159 


Can all this be said of Mohammedanism? Cer¬ 
tainly not. Not one of the numberless arguments just 
quoted in favor of Christianity holds, when applied to 
Mohammedanism with a searching investigation. 
And the same holds good of Buddhism and other non- 
Christian religions. Those doctrines which they hold 
in common with Christianity, are true; those doctrines 
in which they deviate from it, are false: — for instance, 
their denial of the divinity of Christ, and the dogma of 
the Trinity. To prove this, I need not examine the 
countless host of religions; it is sufficient that a dogma 
of Christianity — for example, the divinity of Christ — 
be established beyond a doubt by positive proofs; 
from this I can conclude with mathematical accuracy 
that every religion, inasmuch as it denies this dogma, 
is false, just as I can with full certainty maintain that 
nowhere in the whole world does twice two make five. 
I can maintain this even though I have not proved it 
everywhere; it is merely sufficient to have one proof 
that twice two is four. Hence, the truth of Christian¬ 
ity being once established, it is sufficient to make me 
certain that all other religions, Mohammedanism, 
Buddhism, or whatever else they may be called, are 
false, inasmuch as they contradict Christianity; it is 
not necessary, then, to prove this of each separate 
religion. 1 

III. The Trinity. — Kdgar’s Objection : Chris¬ 
tianity teaches, does it not? that there is only one God, 
but that this God is three-fold. To my mind this is 
a contradiction, and reminds me involuntarily of the 
lines from Goethe: 

1 Mohammedanism. Cf. Hammerstein’s “Christen- 
thum”, chap. II, p. 158—169. 


i6o 


PROPHECIES AND THEIR FUEFIEMENT. 


“Aus Eins mach’ Drei, aus Drei mack’ Eins: 

“Das ist das Hexeneinmaleins!” 1 

Father H.’s Answer : — There would be a con¬ 
tradiction were the assertion : “There is but one God, 
and yet there are three Gods,” or, “In God there is 
but one person, yet in Him there are three persons.” 
This, Christianity does not maintain ; it holds : “God 
is one in essence, but three in Persons.” I should 
like to see how you can prove a contradiction in this. 
If an Irishman were here he would illustrate this for 
you quite practically with his shamrock. The apostle 
of Ireland, St. Patrick, is said to have made use of 
this clover leaf as a symbol of the Blessed Trinity, and 
in remembrance of this the Irish are accustomed to 
wear a leaf of shamrock on his feast. The comparison 
is, indeed, very suggestive: the clover leaf is one, and 
yet it has three leaves; so also, God is one, but has 
three Persons, and there is absolutely no contradiction 
in this. 

However, I admit unhesitatingly that the Blessed 
Trinity is and will ever remain obscure to the finite 
mind. It is in reality the most profound mystery of 
our religion; to fathom it surpasses the powers of 
created intelligence. But this is the point: we must 
believe it, because God has revealed it through Christ. 
We could certainly not believe it, did it involve a 
contradiction; but such is not the case. 2 

IV. The Incarnation of Christ. — Edgar’s 
Objection : — I do not find any difficulty in believing, 
according to the Scriptural account, that Christ derived 
His existence from the Holy Ghost, and not from a 

1 “Make one of three, and three of one: 

’Tis thus the witches’ numbers run.” 

2 Cf. “Christenthum”, p. 125—128. 


the incarnation, the sacred scriptures. 161 

human father. True, it is a miracle, but I do not see 
any valid reason for rejecting it, if I accept others 
historically attested. Nor is it a greater miracle than 
the creation of the first man, which must be acknowl¬ 
edged as a necessary postulate of philosophy and nat¬ 
ural science. My difficulty, however, lies here: Since 
God is unchangeable, how could He become man? 

Father H.’s Answer: — This difficulty, too, 
may be easily solved. A comparison will aid us again. 
A father who has been separated from his child, is 
reunited to him, and this reunion takes place in one 
of two ways, — either the father goes to the child, or 
the child goes to the father. Now, if the father goes 
to the child, he really changes his position in space ; 
but if the child goes to the father, then the father 
remains where he is. 

If we apply to being, what is here true of position 
in space, we can say: The whole change which pro¬ 
ceeds from the Incarnation of God, that is, from a 
union of human nature with a divine Person, regards 
the human nature; this human nature was brought to 
the divinity, not inversely. 1 11 

But let me remark once for all: The mysteries of 
our holy religion have been subjects of the most pro¬ 
found study to the greatest thinkers for almost two 
thousand years; they have been attacked so frequently 
by their most bitter enemies, that you may rest as¬ 
sured, you cannot discover a single difficulty which 
was not made and answered centuries ago. “It is the 
old story over again.” An Origen, and a St. Augus- 

1 With regard to the Divinity of Christ, especially in 
refutation of Harnack’s objections, cf. “Christenthum”; 
p. 128—157. 

11 


162 


PROPHECIES AND THEIR FUEFIEMENT. 


tine, a St. Anselm, and a St. Thomas Aquinas, as well 
as many of the most learned men of modern times, 
have tested the truths of Christianity but found nothing 
in them which could hinder their remaining steadfast 
Christians. 

V. The Sacred Scriptures, especiaeey the 
Mosaic Account of the Creation, and Modern 
Science. — Edgar’s Objection: — According to the 
dogmas of Christianity, Sacred Scripture is the Word 
of God, and, therefore, cannot teach error, not even 
in matters of chronology, history, or natural science. 
Now, it seems to me undeniable that there is much in 
the Sacred Scriptures untenable from the standpoint 
of modern science ; as an illustration, take the Mosaic 
account of the creation, which supposes the world to 
have been developed in six days, while according to 
modern geology periods of millions of years were 
necessary for the formation of the earth. Here is a 
difficulty from which I see no escape. 

Father H. ’s Answer : — The difficulty is not so 
great as it appears. You must, however, distinguish 
between what is erroneously ascribed to the Sacred 
Scripture, and what it really says. For this and 
similar questions I venture the following remarks: 

i. We no longer possess the original manuscripts 
of the sacred books; what we possess are copies and 
translations, into which errors may have crept. We 
Catholics are certainly convinced that the translations 
and editions approved by the Church contain no 
religious errors; but, with regard to the question of 
profane science, mistakes by the translator and the 
copyist may have glided in, and on these points, 
equally with other books of antiquity, we are referred 


THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OE CREATION. 163 

to the ordinary text-criticism. For example, both the 
Fatin Vulgate and the Septuagint are used officially 
by the Church; nevertheless they contradict each other 
in matters of chronology. According to the Sep¬ 
tuagint, 5000 years passed from the time of Adam to 
Christ; according to the Vulgate, only about 4000 
years. The Church leaves chronological questions 
undecided ; if an archeologist thinks he has proof that 
from the time of Adam to Christ 6000 or 7000 years 
must have elapsed, the Church looks upon it quietly ; 
if he really should prove his assertion, only this 
would follow : that in the Septuagint, as well as in 
the Vulgate, there must have been a mistake made by 
the translator or the copyist. 

2. Besides the text-criticism, a sound interpretation 
must be applied. If Sacred Scripture relates, for 
instance, that the sun has risen or set, it does not im¬ 
ply a rejection of the Copernican system, according to 
which the earth revolves around the sun, and not the 
reverse. Scripture uses the ordinary language of the 
people. We, too, speak of the rising and setting of the 
sun, although we know that the sun does not turn to 
the earth, but the earth to the sun. 

3. We now come to the Mosaic account of the 
creation. As to what concerns the text-critic, I believe 
our text is reliable. With respect to the interpretation, 
I can say that the six “jom” (days) in which, follow¬ 
ing the Hebrew text, the formation of the earth and 
its organisms took place, may have represented, ac¬ 
cording to the Hebrew mode of speech, days of millions 
of years as well as days of twenty-four hours. In con¬ 
firmation of this I may add that, according to the 
account of Moses, the sun, by which this division of 


I 


164 PROPHECIES AND PHEIR FUEFIEMEnP. 

time into night and day first commenced, was not 
created until the fourth day; that, therefore, Moses 
could not in any case have meant the first three 
days as ordinary days. I may finally add, as a con¬ 
clusion, the result of St. Augustine’s attempt to har¬ 
monize the subject fifteen hundred years ago : that in 
the six days Moses does not wish to arrange the tem¬ 
poral order of the creative acts, but only to mark the 
succession in the completion of created things. 

These, and various other explanations allowed by 
the Church, would solve your difficulty. Personally 
I hold another view as more probable, but I shall 
preface my statement by saying that I do not by any 
means hold this explanation as infallible. I borrow it 
from the excellent writings of Father Huminelauer on 
the work of the six days. 1 

Therefore, to the point. I believe, first , that the 
days of which Moses chronologically presents the 
account are days of twenty-four hours; secondly , that 
geology has sufficiently proved that various acts of the 
Creator required a period of many (as I think) mil¬ 
lions of years; thirdly , that between these two as¬ 
sumptions there is no contradiction whatever. 

You will exclaim, how is that possible? Now 
slowly. I will be more explicit. But first, I must say 
something of the manner in which God can commun¬ 
icate His revelations, and how He may have inspired 
the writers of the Sacred Scriptures. 

That God should wish to enter into spiritual inter¬ 
course with the human race is, of course, natural. 
His relation to us is not that of an egotistical master, 

1 Cf. Hummelauer, S. J., Der bibl. Schopfungsbericht, 
Freiburg, Herder, 1877. 


HARMONY OF SCRIPTURES AND NATURAL SCIENCES. 165 

to whom His servants are only a commodity, but that 
of a loving Father. To effect this intercourse, different 
means are at His command; He can, for example, 
directly convey this or that knowledge to our under¬ 
standing, just as a musician plays upon his instrument; 
further, He can produce certain sound-waves in the 
air, so that definite words and utterances fall upon our 
ear; He can make use of a visible form which speaks 
to us in His name; finally, He can cause the event of 
which He wishes to give us knowledge, to be figura¬ 
tively represented before our eyes as in a vision, or on 
a stage, while at the same time He manifests to us the 
meaning of the figure. 

The first manner of communication, that is, through 
invisible, spiritual influences, has frequently been 
chosen by God for the inspiration of the Sacred Scrip¬ 
tures. You can fancy those human writers as persons 
to whom an interior voice dictated. But we also find 
that God frequently presented to these writers visible 
images, and at the same time made the meaning of the 
picture intelligible. The revelations of St. John and 
the prophets of the Old Testament afford numerous 
examples of this. 

Suppose, now, that God had chosen this manner 
of communication to present in a grand sketch to 
Moses or to Adam the chronologic order of succession 
of the periods of creation ; suppose that He showed 
Moses in six successive days of twenty-four hours the 
principal epochs in the work of the creation in a 
vision — and all contradiction between Moses and 
geology is removed. Moses would then speak quite 
correctly of six ordinary days; in this way he shows 
exactly the temporal succession of the individual acts 


166 prophecies and their fulfilment. 

of creation, although he does not show it to us direct¬ 
ly, but only indirectly, that is, in a picture. His ex¬ 
position is just as far from being untrue, as that of any 
historical tragedy which reproduces upon the stage in 
a few hours, what in reality has occupied perhaps an 
entire life-time. 

That God chose in this particular instance the 
figurative manner of communication, as He so often 
did with the writers of the Sacred Scriptures, is very 
probable, and strictly congruous with the nature of 
the truths to be communicated. At any rate, it is 
‘possible; and even if there is to be found only a pos¬ 
sible accordance of Sacred Scriptures and geology, that 
should suffice to meet your objection. 

It is, moreover, evident that we must not regard 
the relation of Moses merely as a human tradition of 
earlier events, but must build upon some sort of re¬ 
velation ; for the events having taken place before the 
creation of the first man, a knowledge of them could have 
been communicated to man only by external means. 

That a contradiction exists between the short 
period of six days of which Moses speaks, and the 
immense periods which modern geology demands, has, 
therefore, in no wise been proved. In the succession 
of the different creations, as given by Moses and 
taught by geology, there is just as little opposition. 
In the Sacred Scriptures on the third day the plants 
were created, 1 on the fifth “creeping animals having 
life .... great water monsters and winged fowl,” 2 on 
the sixth day “the animals of the earth according to 
their kinds, ’ ’ and finally man 3 was created. Geology 

1 Genesis, I, 11, 13. 

2 Genesis, I, 20, 23. 

3 Genesis. I. 24. 31. 


LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN. 


167 


shows us this same succession; the oldest organic 
remains found are of plants, and the richest period of 
the plant world probably occurred during the carboni¬ 
ferous period. The formations immediately succeed¬ 
ing, particularly the Jura and Chalk, show in the 
greatest profusion fish and the immense sea monster, 
the saurier; the mammals, on the other hand, do not 
appear until later, and increase in numbers the nearer 
we approach the present age. Fossils of man are 
found only in the most recent formations, and all 
efforts to prove their existence in the earlier periods have 
been vain. A triumph over the Sacred Scriptures has 
again and again been fancied by unbelievers through 
the discovery of human bones in formations which 
have possibly existed hundreds and thousands of 
years ; but it always turns out that the skeleton of an 
amphibian has been mistaken for that of man, the 
confusion being brought about by the deceit of the 
laborers of the quarry, who in this way seek to add to 
their spending money, or to attain some similar end. 
The question now naturally arises : how^is it that the 
accounts of the Sacred Scriptures have until the present 
withstood every criticism of science, while other tra¬ 
ditions and mythologies of antiquity can be branded 
as nonsense even by children ? 

Perhaps you have tried to find such nonsense and 
self-contradiction in Moses also. On the first day, 1 he 
tells us, light was created, and the “morning and 
evening’ ’ were one day. But it is not until the fourth 
day 2 that the sun, moon, and stars first appear “to 
divide day and night, and let them be for signs, and 
for seasons, and for days and for years.” 

1 Genesis, I, 3, 5. 

2 Genesis, I, 14, 19. 


i68 


PROPHECIES AND THEIR FUEFIEMENT. 


The circumstance that before the fourth day the 
account is of “days” and, moreover, of days consist¬ 
ing of “morning and evening” is, of course, explained 
if we follow the view given above, according to which 
Moses speaks directly of the days only of the various 
visions ; and indirectly of the real periods of creation. 
But this difficulty remains, that, according to the 
account of Moses, the light was in reality created 
long before the source of light, the sun. This seems 
to be evident nonsense. But what if just this ap¬ 
parent nonsense contains a truth discovered by geology 
only in recent times? To show this, I must enter 
more deeply into geological questions. 

Imagine yourself existing in those primitive periods 
of the earth’s formation, during which the terrestrial 
crust upon which we live had not its present thickness. 
The molten kernel produced frequent volcanic erup¬ 
tions, and especially frequent elevations and depres¬ 
sions in the entire land surface. Geology has made 
such progress in these questions that maps of the earth 
can be drawn to illustrate, for instance, the land and 
sea of the Tertiary period. But how has this knowl¬ 
edge been attained ? By means of petrifactions; for, 
as a rule, it is only in water that petrifactions, and 
impressions of mollusks, and other organic formations 
can originate. — But how can it be known from those 
fossils that, for instance, the region of Maine formed 
an immense basin during just the Tertiary period? 
Even if fossil mollusks are found there, could not 
these have belonged to any other formation as well as 
to the Tertiary period? —» The characteristic fossils 
help to clear away this difficulty. If during all these 
periods some particular region had. been the floor of 


the) mosaic account and geoouogy. 169 

the sea, it must show deposits, and in these deposits, 
fossils from all periods. Suppose now that in the 
undermost stratum, and in it only (which is possibly 
some hundred feet thick), you find the mollusk A; 
in the second, going upward, and in it only, the mol¬ 
lusk B ; and so on. Are you not forced to conclude 
that the mollusk A appeared upon the earth only at 
the time of the formation of the oldest stratum, the 
mollusk B at the time of the second, etc. ? This mol¬ 
lusk must, therefore, have been created at the begin¬ 
ning of the period in question and have already 
become extinct at the end of it. 

In a similar, though not perhaps in so simple a 
way, it has been possible to group a system of charac¬ 
teristic fossils, that is, of petrified plants and animals, 
by which the relative age of an otherwise unknown 
formation can be determined. In case, for instance, 
petrified mollusks are found in a place which is now 
land, I judge that at one time this region was the 
floor of the sea, and by some means, perhaps by a 
later elevation, became land; but at what time this 
took place, I cannot decide without further investiga¬ 
tion. But if I find that the characteristic fossil here 
is, say, that of the eleventh formation, then I know 
that this portion of the land was covered by the sea at 
the time of the eleventh formation. 

Accordingly, in the characteristic fossils we have 
a series of representatives of the plant and animal 
world, which have succeeded each other in the dif¬ 
ferent periods of the earth. Now, what is the picture 
they give us? We find that the characteristic fossils 
of about the eight oldest formations are identical over 
the whole earth, at the poles as well as at the equator. 


170 prophecies and their fueeiement. 

It is only at a later period that they commence to vary 
according to the variation of the climate. What fol¬ 
lows from this? Obviously that during the oldest 
formations a uniform climate reigned over the whole 
earth. But how can such a uniformity of climate at 
the poles and at the equator be explained ? Only on 
the supposition that the light and heat did not proceed 
from a point lying beyond the earth (as the sun), but 
either from the earth itself, or from all sides., that is, 
from a layer of clouds in which the whole earth was 
enveloped, and in which perhaps the light and heat of 
the sun had been diffused. In neither case would the 
sun and moon have appeared to the eye of the specta¬ 
tor as sources of light; and since Moses occupied the 
position of an ordinary spectator, he is right when he 
speaks of the appearance of light before the sun, the 
moon, and the stars appeared as the sources of light. 

An old Greek writer relates the following : During 
the reign of the Egyptian king Necho, Africa was 
circumnavigated; but the sailors related incredible 
things, for example, that the sun was seen at the 
north, hence no confidence was placed in their ac¬ 
count. Now the very thing which the writer quotes 
as a reason for distrust, is the most convincing argu¬ 
ment for the truth of the assertion ; for now we know 
what was unknown to the Greeks, that when one 
has passed the equator, he sees the sun at the north. 
So, too, with the Mosaic record. Moses relates what 
has but recently been established by geologists, and 
what in itself sounds very incredible : namely, that 
during the long initial geological periods no sun was 
visible in the heavens! This is certainly a most 
striking argument for the credibility of the Mosaic 


MOSES DIVINELY ENLIGHTENED. 171 

account. And more. Moses could not have known 
these facts by tradition, for at that time (according to 
these very geological data) there was no human being 
to witness these phenomena. If, nevertheless, these 
facts were known to Mos^s, how could he have known 
them except by divine revelation? 

Hold fast, therefore, to the truths of Christianity 
and to its sacred writings. Be convinced that all real 
data of modern science do not oppose, but only con¬ 
firm them. If apparent contradictions are found, it is 
either because persons attribute to the Sacred Scrip¬ 
tures what they do not relate at all, or accept as a 
certain result of science a mere hypothesis, which may 
be set aside by further investigation. A real contra¬ 
diction between nature and revelation is impossible. 



III. 


THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS 
DOCTRINES. 


i. The Rings of Nathan the Wise. 

Edgar’s Fetter. 

Reverend Father, your friendly letter has dispelled 
my last doubt; I am now wholly and absolutely Chris¬ 
tian. It is quite clear to me that to refuse to submit 
to the mild sceptre of Christianity leads inevitably to 
atheism, materialism, nihilism, or at least to skep¬ 
ticism. All such half-hearted measures, which in 
science as in practical life oscillate between infidelity 
and Christianity, are in the long run entirely theoret¬ 
ical, and practically untenable. 

Such is the conclusion to which you have led me. 

But at this point I pause to ask, where is genuine 
Christianity? Is it in the old Eutheran Church, or in 
the Calvinist? Is it in the Prussian Union? the Angli¬ 
can ? the Roman Catholic ? the established Church of 
Russia? or in any one of the old or new sects, Nestorian, 
Arian, Methodists, Baptists, etc.? 

Unless I am able to answer this question it will 
avail me little to know that Christianity is true. I 
would be in a position similar to that of a creditor 
who knows that one Charles Meyer owes him a million 
dollars; but which of the many Charles Meyers is his 
debtor, or where he lives, is wholly a mystery to him. 

(172) 



WHKRE IS GENUINK CHRISTIANITY I* 173 

Of course, I may look on that Christianity as 
genuine which is common to all confessions. But 
which is common to all? Even the belief in the Trin¬ 
ity and the Divinity of Christ is not common to all, 
for these dogmas are denied by Unitarians and Arians, 
and frequently by preachers of the Evangelical (Euth- 
eran) Church. And if I want to examine closely 
the practical points of Christianity, then I must know 
whether, as Euther teaches, faith attains to eternal 
felicity, or whether, as the Catholic Church teaches, 
works must be added thereto; whether Christ has 
established penance as a sacrament, so that I am 
obliged to confess my sins to a priest in order to obtain 
pardon, or whether confession is a mere human inven¬ 
tion, something superfluous; whether children can be 
validly baptized in the sense that they must be baptized 
to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, or whether, with 
the Baptists, I am to consider infant baptism as in¬ 
valid and contrary to the Scriptures; whether I receive 
the real body of Jesus Christ in communion as the 
Catholics, Russians, and Eutherans teach, or whether 
with the Calvinists, I am to see in communion merely 
a memorial. 

Regarding these points Christ would not and could 
not have left us in the dark, if He was the promised 
Messiah, — if He came to teach the truth and to show 
us the way to Heaven. 

When asked the question: Which religion do you 
profess? am I to answer with Schiller: “Keine von 
alien, die Du mir nennst” ?* In other words, am I to 
hold that all religions have erred — Catholic, Euth- 
eran, Russian, Anglican, Mormon, etc.? that not one 


Not any of all thou namest. 


174 The catholic church and its doctrines. 

of these has the full and orthodox truth ? If this be 
so, then there is nothing left for me to do but to 
collect the fragments of truth from all forms of Chris¬ 
tianity, as millions of Christians have done before 
me, and especially as the followers of new sects have 
tried to do. But what guarantee have I that I am the 
only one fortunate enough to have actually found the 
whole and unadulterated truth ? What guarantee that 
the religion I have discovered, or framed, is not in¬ 
cluded in the number of those of which it is said: 
“Keine von alien, die Du mir nennst” ? 

And suppose I should discover the truth more 
fully than any one before me; am I not obliged then 
to maintain that I alone have founded that universal 
kingdom which should have been established by the 
Messiah? that kingdom which, according to the Psal¬ 
mist, was to embrace all nations, and according to 
Daniel, surpass in extent the Assyria-Babylonian king¬ 
dom, the Media-Persian, the Macedonian, and the 
Roman Empire, and which should be a kingdom of 
truth ? 

This, in fact, I must assert, because of all the col¬ 
lected fragments of Christianity, not one can be recog¬ 
nized as that kingdom, since they have all erred. 

Again, if I make a summary of all confessions: 
Catholic, Russian, Eutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, etc., 
the result will be a veritable chaos of contradictions 
with still fewer characteristics of the truth. I must, 
then, as I said above, consider everything besides 
Christianity as a deviation from this kingdom, myself 
as the only representative of the genuine kingdom of 
Jesus Christ. I would then stand isolated like the old 
Jew, who in Platen’s “Verhangnissvollen Gabel” 1 

1 “The Fatal Fork.” 


CHRIST’S KINGDOM MUST BK RECOGNIZABLE. 175 

forms the whole choir. And what is more, I must 
affirm that from the time of Jesus Christ to my own 
time, that fifth kingdom which was to have been 
established by the Messiah, has never existed; and, 
following the example of Hegel, I must claim for my 
worthy person the honor of beginning a new era in 
the world’s history. 

But what foolish twaddle! Some one of the great 
Christian confessions must be genuine Christianity 
uncontaminated, otherwise it has been altogether lost, 
and in that case Christ has failed in his mission. And 
not only must one of those great confessions possess 
the truth, but it must be known to possess it, and 
Christ must have provided that it could always be 
recognized. Otherwise he would have acted as the 
father in Lessing’s Nathan, who bequeathed to his 
three sons three rings, one genuine, and two false, 
but left the three in doubt as to which of them pos¬ 
sessed the genuine ring. Had God acted in this 
manner towards us, the truth of Christianity would be 
of just as much advantage to us, as to the creditor 
would be the knowledge that an unknown Charles 
Meyer owed him a million. 

I repeat, then, that one of the great Christian con¬ 
fessions must contain unalloyed Christianity; but 
which, remains to be discovered. 

As one brought up in the Lutheran Church, it is 
natural that I should look to that confession for 
genuine Christianity. But I must concede that the 
mere circumstance of having been born and brought 
up in this Church is no guarantee of its truth; many 
persons are born in Mormonism, in Mohammedanism, 
and in Judaism, yet, as we have seen, none of these is 


176 THE catholic church and its doctrines. 

the true religion. You see, reverend Father, I am in 
a strange dilemma. You have led me to the know¬ 
ledge that Christianity is the true religion; you must 
now show me where true Christianity is to be found. 



2. Subversion or Development? 

Father H’s Answer. 

Your letter is a source of great pleasure to me; and 
I will answer immediately. Your conclusion that one 
of the great confessions must be pure and unmutilated 
Christianity is wholly logical. For in case each one 
possesses no more than fragments of truth, and those 
interwoven with errors, then there is no kingdom of 
truth such as the Messiah was commissioned to estab¬ 
lish, nor has the promise of Christ that the Holy 
Ghost should guide His apostles to all truth been ful¬ 
filled; finally, as you very aptly remark, the individual 
Christian is left unguided in the most important ques¬ 
tions of life. 

You are justified in saying that from the various 
creeds we must be able to select the genuine ring, (to 
follow your application of Cessing) that is, the confes¬ 
sion which has preserved the real doctrines of Jesus 
Christ, and which, therefore, has neither lost the 
essential parts of this doctrine, nor offered human doc¬ 
trines as the teachings of Jesus Christ. For what 
would it avail us to know that this genuine confession 
exists, if it could not be recognized ? 

Among the great confessions of which you speak, 
I understand you to mean the Roman Catholic, the 
Russian Church, Lutheranism, Calvinism, the so- 
called Evangelical, and finally the Established Church 
of England. I shall for the time being range 

(177) 


12 


1 78 SUBVERSION OR DEVELOPMENT? 

Roman Catholicism in the same line with the other 
confessions, although I will remark just here that we 
number more than two hundred millions, and perhaps 
more than all the hundreds of other confessions 
taken together. For a better idea of the leading Chris¬ 
tian confessions I enclose a graphic representation in 
which the number of members and the age of each 
confession is found. 1 

But to stick to our point: I agree perfectly with 
you that some one of the various denominations, some 
one of these forms' of Christianity, must contain its 
substance entire and unadulterated. The question is: 
Which? 

I answer you briefly and candidly, that this 
genuine Christianity is the Roman Catholic Church, 
and I am ready to advance a succession of proofs to 
sustain my assertion. At present the following simple 
reflection will suffice. 

Genuine Christianity, the kingdom of truth founded 
by Christ, must endure from the. time of Christ, until 
Judgment Day. Any doctrine which has originated 
since the time of Jesus Christ, or which will have dis¬ 
appeared before the Fast Judgment, cannot be the 
doctrine of Christ. This is the foundation upon which 
my demonstration rests; you yourself have suggested 
it, and it is a solid one. I do not say, that a Christian 
dogma,—for instance, the doctrine of the authenticity 
and inspiration of the individual parts of the Sacred 
Scriptures — might not in the course of centuries have 
taken a clearer form; but what I do maintain is that 
if, until the year 1886 for example, the book of the 
Prophet Isaias was universally accepted as the word of 

1 Cf. table in the appendix. 


CHRISTIANITY FROM CHRIST TILT JUDGMENT DAY. 179 

God by all the great Christian confessions, such it 
must be. On the other hand, if a new sect just form¬ 
ing excludes Isaias from the Sacred Scriptures cer¬ 
tainly this new sect is not genuine Christianity, inas¬ 
much as it contradicts the Christianity of 1885, and 
all the previous years and centuries. 

In like manner, the Trinity, as well as the Divinity 
of Christ, is undoubtedly a Christian doctrine, for it 
was held as such by all the great confessions of the 
Middle Ages; the Arians who denied it earlier are of 
no consequence, the Unitarians of the sixteenth cen¬ 
tury had not yet appeared. It follows, therefore, that 
any newly originated sect, which denies the Trinity or 
Divinity of Christ, is not genuine Christianity. 

From this I conclude further, that according to the 
Christian doctrine children can be validly baptized, 
and that the confession of the Anabaptists, which 
repudiates this doctrine, is in opposition to Christian¬ 
ity, in spite of the appearance of truth which it 
assumes through its appeal to the text-critic. For in 
case the Anabaptists are right, then for centuries the 
Church has erred in a very essential point, and that 
cannot be. 

Now I am going to turn my weapon against you, 
my friend. Before the appearance of Calvin all the 
great confessions held that the real body of Christ was 
received in Holy Communion. Now this doctrine 
would be a diabolical deception if it were not conform¬ 
able to truth: therefore, the doctrine must be true, and 
we must conclude that the doctrine of Calvin is a 
mutilation of genuine Christianity. 

And remark this. During the centuries immedi¬ 
ately preceding Calvin and Tuther, it was universally 


180 SUBVERSION OR DEVELOPMENT? 

held that Christ had instituted seven Sacraments; it 
was believed by the Roman Catholic Church, by the 
Greek Church, by the Russian and by all the minor 
Oriental sects; in short, by every Christian confession 
of any consequence. It is therefore Christian truth, 
and you Protestants by rejecting five sacraments 
instituted by Christ have rejected an essential part of 
Christianity. 

Almost the same may be said of the other points of 
difference between your doctrines and ours. 

By this argument Protestantism with all its sub¬ 
divisions stands condemned. We have, therefore, 
only the Roman Catholic to consider, and, perhaps, the 
Greek and Russian Churches; again we have three 
rings from which, by means of the customary test, we 
must select the genuine. 

And the test is very easily applied. The practical 
difference in these confessions lies principally in this, 
— that the Catholic Church honors the Pope of Rome 
as the successor of St. Peter, and the visible head of 
the Church; the separated Greeks and Russians do 
not. The question, therefore, is: What was the uni¬ 
versally acknowledged doctrine on this point before 
the separation of those confessions? 

The profession of faith of Pope Hormisdas of the 
year 517, gives us the answer. At that period this 
document had been already signed by the Patriarch 
John of Constantinople and 2500 bishops; and none 
but those bishops who had signed it were admitted 
into the eighth general council (the Fourth of Con¬ 
stantinople held in the year 869). It reads thus : 

“Salvation consists above all in preserving the true 
rule of faith. And because the words of our Ford 


HORMISDAS, COUNCILS OF RAFF RAN, LYONS, FTC. l8l 

Jesus Christ cannot be changed : ‘Thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my church,’ so these words 
have been confirmed by fact; because religion has 
always been preserved pure in the Apostolic See. And 
since we wish in no way to depart from Christ’s faith 
and doctrines, we hope to be worthy to be of the one 
communion, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in 
which is the entire and true solidarity of the Catholic 
Church 1 

The eleventh general council (the Fourth of 
Lateran, 1215) is even clearer : “By divine dispensa¬ 
tion the Roman Catholic Church has received the 
principality of ordinary jurisdiction over every other 
Church as the mother and teacher of the faithful. ’ ’ — 
The fourteenth general council (the Second of Lyons, 
1274) gives the following testimony: “The Roman 
Church possesses the highest and most perfect primacy 
and principality over the entire Catholic Church, 
which fulness of power she professes in truth and 
humility to have received from Our Lord Himself in 
St. Peter, the Prince or Chief of the Apostles, whose 
successor is the Bishop of Rome.’’ Finally, in the 
year 1439, the Council of Florence (the eighteenth 
general council) says that the holy Apostolic See and 
the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole 
globe; that this Roman Pontiff is the successor of 
St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true 
vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and the 
father and teacher of all Christians; that the full 
power to feed, to rule, and to govern, was conferred 
upon him in the person of St. Peter by our Lord Jesus 
Christ; as is contained in the decrees and proceedings 


1 Mansi, Vlir, 441 — 452 , 


182 SUBVERSION OR DEVELOPMENT? 

of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. ’ ’ 

The Greek emperor, Michael Paleologus, the Pat¬ 
riarch Joseph of Constantinople, the delegates of other 
Patriarchs, and the Russian Metropolitan Isidor, all 
acknowledged this declaration of the Council of 
Florence. 

Before' the Greeks and Russians renounced the 
unity of faith, the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope 
was held by all the great confessions existing at that 
time; hence it also belongs to the complex of Chris¬ 
tian truths as truly as the doctrines of the seven Sacra¬ 
ments, the real presence of Christ in Communion, the 
Divinity of Christ, and the Trinity. 

My argument is finished. You yourself have 
agreed that one of the five or six great confessions 
must possess the entire, unalloyed truth. I have 
shown you that of all these confessions not one pos¬ 
sesses it but the Catholic Church, because they 
now teach something the opposite of which was at 
one time universally held, and which cannot therefore 
be Christian doctrine. From this it follows, that the 
Catholic Church alone is in the full possession of 
Christian truth unmixed with any errors. 

(2. From Edgar’s Answer.) 

Your demonstration is logical; but I half think 
that it could be turned against you, by saying that the 
Catholic Church, too, has departed from the truth, 
and, consequently, that not one of the Christian con¬ 
fessions possesses genuine Christianity, but that all 
have either added to or taken something from it. 

In other words, you Catholics have added numer¬ 
ous human dogmas to the pure doctrine of Jesus 


THE INFAEEIBIEITY OF THE POPE. 183 

Christ, dogmas which were not believed in the first 
centuries of Christianity. As a flagrant example I 
mention the infallibility of the Pope, which was not 
believed either by yourselves or by any of the great 
Christian confessions before the year 1870, and which, 
therefore, certainly does not belong to genuine Chris¬ 
tianity. It is rather one of the many human additions 
which you have introduced into the pure doctrines of 
Jesus Christ. 

What can you say to this ? 

(From Father H.’s Letter.) 

My answer to your objection to the infallibility of 
the Pope is expressed by the difference between the 
terms subversion and development. As an instance of 
subversion I would cite the denial by the Greek and 
Russian Churches (first in 517 a. d. and again in 
1439 A. D.) of the primacy of the Pope, a doctrine 
previously acknowledged by them. You must either 
maintain that the entire Christian Church taught error 
before the year 517, or confess that the Greek and 
Russian Churches are now in error, and that the Cath¬ 
olic Church which is in accord with fhe doctrines 
universally prevailing in the year 517, retains genuine 
Christianity. 

I would call it subversion also if before 1517 it was 
held by the entire Christian Church that Christ in¬ 
stituted seven Sacraments, and if after 1517 you Prot¬ 
estants asserted, in opposition to this, that Christ had 
not established seven Sacraments, but only two. In 
consequence of this subversion you Protestants also 
must either affirm that the Church was unfaithful to 
her calliug before 1517, or confess that you yourselves 


1 84 SUBVERSION OR DEVELOPMENT? 

after 1517 lost an essential part of Christianity. Sub¬ 
version consists in the decline of what at one time 
prevailed as a firmly established Christian doctrine. 

Not so with growth or development. 

And first, I call it development—to return to your 
objection of human dogmas— if the Church institutes 
new fast days, new ceremonies, etc.; for, although the 
Church can add nothing to the manifestation once 
given by Christ, it is her province to fashion the 
Christian life, and, as it were, to develop it more and 
more according to the principles of His doctrine. It 
is like a tree, which, though constantly remaining the 
original tree, annually produces new flowers and fruits 
corresponding to its nature; the heresies, on the con¬ 
trary, are like twigs of an entirely different species 
artificially grafted on this tree ; or one might say they 
resemble artificial oleaster blossoms, which have been 
tied to the branches of a real oleaster to impose upon 
ignorant spectators. 

Further, I call it development if the Church — in 
questions of dogma — gives form to and develops with 
more scientific exactness what has been universally 
believed; if she arranges the Sacraments, previously 
held, into a system of seven ; or if, against the Mono¬ 
thelites, she concludes from the two natures of Jesus 
Christ, the divine and the human, that there are in 
Him two distinct wills, the divine and the human. 
This development also resembles the constant growth 
of the tree, which does not in the meantime lose its 
original nature. 

Finally, I call it development if questions, regard¬ 
ing which various opinions have prevailed, are set at 
rest by the decisions of the Church ; in this case there 


illustrations of doctrinal dfvklopmfnt. 185 

is as little ground for asserting a decay in the original 
nature, as in either of the cases just referred to. 

Do you see the difference now between subversion 
and development ? By subversion we understand the 
Christianity of one time contradicting the Christianity 
of another; by development the settling of doubts 
which had previously existed; but never the annull¬ 
ing of an undoubted and universally acknowledged 
truth. 

To make the matter clearer, I will make use of the 
following comparison: The Christian dogmas resemble 
an immense estate, bequeathed by our divine Saviour 
to His Church almost two thousand years ago. 
Nothing was to be added to this property; nothing 
to be taken from it; unimpaired it was to descend 
from generation to generation. I11 the midst of this 
estate is the rock upon which is built the ancient 
family castle of granite. This rock and its castle are 
the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, and the Incarna¬ 
tion of Christ. Around this castle are grouped the 
other parts of the estate, fields, woods, and meadow 
lands —• the other dogmas of the Christian religion, of 
the Catholic Church. These also are absolute and 
immutable in their essentials. This castle cannot be 
disposed of, nor can it be destroyed; but it may be 
enlarged and its beauty enhanced by new decorations. 
Not the smallest portion can be taken from the estate, 
nor can any new possession be added to it; although 
it may be enriched with new woods, and new plants. 
So, too, with the Catholic .dogmas: they remain 
always the same, but they may be repeatedly applied 
to Christian life in new forms of devotion. But even 
these forms of devotion, — for example, the breviary of 


186 SUBVERSION OR DEVELOPMENT? 

the priests, and the forty days fast in memory of the 
Passion of Christ, extend like aged oaks far back into 
antiquity; and although they are not the unchange¬ 
able dogma, the Church cannot be [induced to fell 
these ancient growths. 

But how about the defining of the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception by the Church in 1854? Was 
not this the creation of a new dogma,—something 
new added to the old estate? I answer by another 
question. If the owner of the old castle, in whose 
family the estate had continued for eighteen centuries, 
should employ a surveyor to draw up an exact plan of 
the whole property, would he add to the original 
estate? Certainly not. He would only determine 
more exactly what did and what did not belong to the 
original possession. But is it not true, at least, that 
the work of the surveyor would for the first time make 
known to the owner the full extent of his estate? Not 
even that. The owner and his servants must have 
known all this before; but individuals among the ser¬ 
vants would obtain a much more exact knowledge of 
the estate after the surveyor’s plan had been hung up 
for general view in the castle hall. In like manner 
the dogmas of Catholicism have been held from the 
very beginning in the Church; the dogma of the 
Immaculate Conception may be proved from the Sacred 
Scriptures, and with the latter formed a part of God’s 
bequest to the Church. But in the early centuries 
there may have been many members of the Church 
who did not have proper ideas regarding it; the de¬ 
finition of 1854 was like the work of the surveyor and 
the resulting plan. Since it was exposed for general 
view, that is, since its definition, scarcely an educated 


DEFINITION OF DOGMA. 187 

Catholic can be found who does not know that this 
dogma is of the essence of revelation. 

Moreover, during the course of the eighteen cen¬ 
turies, law-suits have often been brought against the 
estate by unfriendly neighbors; in like manner her¬ 
esies have attacked the dogmas of the Church, from 
the first assailed, the Holy Trinity, to the most recently 
impugned doctrine. But the judicial decisions de¬ 
fended the ancient estate against its enemies; in like 
manner the Church by her definitions repelled the 
innovations of heresy. Now when the verdict in any 
one of the disputed claims was rendered in favor of 
the owner, did it cause his possession of the disputed 
property to date only from the time of the verdict? 
Most assuredly not. Should we not rather say : The 
property was his and his family’s possession from the 
beginning, and the recent verdict has only recognized 
this claim, which dates from antiquity. So, also, a 
dogma does not begin to be a dogma of the Catholic 
Church when it is solemnly defined against the attacks 
of heresy ; it has been dogma since the time of Christ, 
but defined dogma only from the time of its solemn 
definition. 

Such is the condition of things in the Catholic 
Church. Far different is the case with heresies. 
First, as a rule each heresy excludes a portion of the 
inherited property, that is, gives up some of the old 
dogmas; the aged oaks upon the remaining districts 
are then felled, that is, the ancient ceremonies, because 
they-are of human origin, are given up; finally the 
castle itself is destroyed, that is, belief in God, or in the 
Trinity and the Divinity of Christ vanishes. So the 
squandering of the property continues until the naked- 


188 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS DOCTRINES. 

ness and void of atheism and materialism is reached. 
The course of heresy is marked by decline, disaster, 
and separation ; that of the Church by the preservation 
of her inherited property through growth, embellish¬ 
ment, and constant development. 

This premised I can say: The declaration of Infalli¬ 
bility presented by the Vatican Council in 1870, was 
not subversion, but development. For it had never 
been a universally acknowledged doctrine, that the 
Pope was not infallible: at most, the infallibility of 
the Pope previous to 1870 was an open question, and 
that only in a very undefined and limited sense. 
Indeed this doctrine was commonly believed in the 
Catholic Church long before the year 1870 ; and it was 
proposed to me as an established, if not a solemnly 
defined doctrine when I studied theology before 1870. 
The most eminent theologians of the past—for instance, 
Cardinal Bellarmine — teach it, and fundamentally it 
is only a logical consequence and development of 
those doctrines which had already been established by 
the declaration of Hormisdas and by the general 
Councils of Lateran, Lyons, and Florence, mentioned 
above. The Vatican decree declaring that as the 
supreme teacher of the Church, the Pope when speak¬ 
ing ex-cathedra is infallible in his decisions, must, 
therefore, be considered not subversion but the logical 
development, or solemn formal explanation, of what 
had already been universally believed. 

The Old Catholics themselves formerly believed 
that the decisions of the general councils were in¬ 
fallible ; but since the general Vatican Council with 
singular unanimity proclaimed the Infallibility of the 
Pope and the Old Catholics have not acquiesced in 
this decision, they are guilty of subversion. 


PROTESTANTISM IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE PAST. 189 

It was subversion, too, when Luther rejected five of 
the seven prevailing sacraments ; but, on the contrary, 
it was development, as I said before, when the separate 
sacraments, for which there is testimony far back in 
antiquity, were arranged under the number seven by a 
systematic theological treatment. 

I know very well that you Protestants consider 
many other things in Catholic doctrine besides the In¬ 
fallibility of the Pope as human inventions, and a dis¬ 
tortion of original Christianity ; but you are mistaken. 
The Catholic Church does not present anything as the 
doctrine of Jesus Christ, unless it is such in reality; 
she has neither rejected nor added anything to His 
doctrine ; she has merely established and developed 
what was already expressed. If you maintain the con¬ 
trary, I shall quietly await your proof. 

In the meantime I will sum up : You have agreed 
that one of the great confessions existing at present 
must be Christianity pure and uncontaminated, other¬ 
wise we have been deluded by the promises of Christ. 
I have generalized with logical sequence your prin¬ 
ciple, that at all times one great confession must have 
possessed Christianity in its entirety, because if at any 
time this were not the case the promises of Christ would 
have been in vain. I showed you that, previous to 
Luther, the belief in the seven sacraments was uni¬ 
versal, and before the separation of the Russians and 
Greeks, the primacy of the Pope was universally be¬ 
lieved. The objection which you advance against the 
Vatican dogma of Infallibility I may consider settled. 
I may therefore conclude, that of all the great modern 
confessions, the Catholic Church alone has not fallen 
into contradiction with the past in any point whatever, 


190 THE CATHODIC CHURCH AND ITS DOCTRINES. 

and therefore, must possess true Christianity. To 
maintain the contrary is to doubt the Messianic mis¬ 
sion of Jesus Christ, and to be incapable of discerning 
what is real Christian doctrine and what is not: it 
follows we must look for another Messiah, who will 
know better than the first how to protect His doctrines 
and His Church from error. 

But, thank God, such is not the case. As early as 
the second century, Clement of Alexandria (died 217 
A. d.), declared: “The one ancient Catholic Church 
is the truly original Church, from which the sects 
have departed through innovation, and appear as 
caricatures.” 1 In the words of St. Augustine (354— 
430 A. d.) I exhort you Protestants: “Return to us, for 
the ancestors from whom you have descended had not 
the faith which you now teach : you have departed 
from the Church, which teaches the contrary of that 
which you are now taught. ’ ’ 2 

In the meantime, continue to pray fervently for 
light, and pray also for me. 


1 Clemens Alex. Strom. VII., p. 764 . (Hettinger, Apolo- 
gie, 5 . Aufl., IV., s. 424 ). 

2 St. Augustine, op. imperf. IV., 10 . (Hettinger, Apologie, 
IV., s. 422 ). 



3 * Principle of Authority, or Private Interpretation ? 

(Edgar’s Eetter.) 

You have answered my objection regarding the 
Old Catholics. There is indeed a difference between 
settling disputed questions and annulling formally 
established dogmas ; the Vatican Council, as you say, 
did the former, the Old Catholics, and previously 
Euther, the latter. The logical consequence is, I sup¬ 
pose, that the doctrines of Euther are not to be con¬ 
sidered genuine Christianity, the ‘ ‘pure word of God, ’ ’ 
to use his own phrase ; for it is impossible for the en¬ 
tire Church of any century to have contradicted the 
real word of God to such an extent, or to have deviated 
from it so far as Euther asserts, in the centuries pre¬ 
ceding his appearance. 

If, among the great confessions existing at present, 
I could find one which has preserved pure Christianity 
unmutilated, then I should not be at all perplexed ; 
but it seems to me all have erred, the Protestants as a 
rule through deficiency, the Catholics through excess. 

And yet I cannot assume this without rejecting 
Christianity as a whole, especially the Messianic mis¬ 
sion of Jesus Christ, and His promises. For if Christ 
be the Son of God, ought he not to have provided that 
His doctrines should be transmitted to posterity entire 
and unfalsified? Was it not his purpose to establish a 
kingdom of truth ? Or can I make a comprehensive 
abridgment of all the Christian confessions, so-called, 

(19O 


192 authority or private interpretation? 

and regard this as the kingdom of truth, although 
there is no Christian doctrine which has not been 
rejected by one or other of these sects. 

Certainly this complex, considered as a whole, bears 
a greater resemblance to Babylon, the city of confusion, 
than to Jerusalem, the city of peace. If the promise 
of Christ to remain with us until the end of time meant 
nothing more than that all the fragments of His doc¬ 
trines could always be found in some confession, but 
in such a way that the whole would be intermingled 
indiscriminately with errors, then Christ would have 
been of no more use to me with His promises of truth 
then a bill of credit to the unknown, unrecognized 
Charles Meyer. 

Reverend Father, to be strictly logical, I must 
acknowledge that you have the best of the argument. 
As a Christian I must maintain that some one confes¬ 
sion possesses uncontaminated truth; sound human 
reason tells me that this fortunate one is neither the 
Rutheran nor the Greek, nor the established Church 
of England, nor indeed any of the numerous non- 
Catholic sects. Now if one of the three sons (to return 
to Ressing’s comparison) possesses the genuine ring, 
and if it is certain that the two younger do not possess 
it, then according to all the laws of logic and mathe¬ 
matics, the oldest must have it. 

And yet—pardon me—from youth up I have been 
so accustomed to see in the Catholic Church merely a 
collection of human doctrines, partly superstitious and 
partly un-Christian, that it seems impossible for me to 
recognize in it the kingdom of truth founded by Christ. 
I am therefore, compelled to propose these Catholic 
doctrines to you to see if you can harmonize them 


“he that heareth you, heareth me.” 193 

with the doctrines of Jesus Christ, and with the Chris¬ 
tianity of the primitive Church. 

I commence with what I consider the most strik¬ 
ing difference between Protestantism and Catholicity. 
It is the Protestant principle of private interpretation 
on the one side, and, the Catholic principle of author¬ 
ity on the other. I beg you, therefore, to prove to me 
that Christ has instituted a doctrine of authority, to 
which each of the faithful must subject himself in 
matters of faith; in other words, that He requires an 
obedience of the understanding, a submission of the 
judgment, to the doctrinal decisions of poor, frail 
men, a subjection which Protestants look upon as un¬ 
dignified and unreasonable. 

(Father H’s. Answer.) 

Without further comment I comply with your wish 
by quoting the following passages from the Sacred 
Scriptures: 

1. When Jesus sent forth the seventy-two dis¬ 
ciples to preach, He said to them: “He that heareth 
you heareth me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth 
me. And he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that 
sent me. ” 1 

Is not this the Catholic principle of authority in 
plain words? For I suppose that you would not dis¬ 
pute with Christ—with God Himself, were He to 
teach you ; if God were to tell you that there are three 
Persons in the Godhead, and that He has instituted 
seven sacraments in the Church, would you not sub¬ 
mit your judgment? Do you find anything undigni¬ 
fied in this submission of your understanding to the 
word of God ? 

1 St. Luke, X., 16 . 

13 


194 AUTHORITY OR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION? 

Very well. In tlie foregoing passage Christ says 
that you must hear the word of His deputy as His own 
word; therefore, He demands a subjection to the 
teaching of His representatives, equally with that of 
His own, thus establishing for His Church the Cath¬ 
olic principle of authority. 

And what is there unreasonable or undignified in 
this? Unreasonable and undignified it would be were I 
necessitated to believe an untruth in consequence of 
this principle; but since I know that Christ has im¬ 
posed upon me nothing foolish, I conclude from the 
fact that He demands of me faith in His ambassadors, 
that He renders them infallible, at least when speak¬ 
ing as the Head of His Church. The case was quite 
different for the seventy-two disciples since Christ was 
still visible upon earth and could be referred to when 
doubts arose in matters- of faith. But after His depart¬ 
ure, infallibility was all the more necessary for the 
highest ecclesiastical office, the supreme head of the 
Church, the superior to whom He must have delivered 
the pastoral and teaching office in its fullness in order 
that his flock might not be as sheep without a shepherd. 

The principle of authority in matters of faith and 
the infallibility of the highest established authority, 
are, therefore, to a certain degree, inseparable; for 
that reason I have brought into our discussion one of 
the most convincing arguments for the infallibility of 
the general councils and of the Pope. 

But what if a Council commands me to believe 
something in contradiction to science ? 

This question is as clever, or as stupid, as the ques¬ 
tion : What would be the result if twice two were five ? 
In one case as in the other a second absurdity would 


PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 195 

follow from the first. If two times two were five, then 
twice four would be ten; and if a Council pronounces 
an erroneous decision of faith, then Christ has com¬ 
manded me to believe an error. But one is absurd as 
the other, and I can justly turn the conclusion as 
follows : Now, because twice four are not ten, then 
twice two are not five; and because Christ cannot com¬ 
mand us to believe an error, the highest doctrinal 
authority instituted by Him, to which we should listen 
as to Himself, cannot command us to believe an error 
as dogma. 

2. This passage of the commission of the seventy- 
two disciples relates the institution of a human doc¬ 
trinal authority for that time in which Christ was still 
visible upon the earth. But such a commission was 
far more necessary after His ascension into Heaven ; 
for now the Supreme Teacher, who is invisible, must 
for the visible continuation of His office be represented 
by visible, human teachers, and in such a way as to 
preserve His doctrines uncorrupted. 

We would be obliged to assume that Christ ordained 
such a representation, even though the Sacred Script¬ 
ures did not speak of it expressly; but fortunately St. 
Matthew gives an explicit account of this commission. 
He relates how Christ, after His resurrection, com¬ 
manded His eleven apostles to go to a mountain in 
Galilee; how He appeared to them and said: “All 
power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going 
therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 
I have commanded you. And behold I am with you 
all days, even to the consummation of the world.” 1 

1 St. Matthew, XXVIII, 18 , 20 . 


196 authority or private interpretation? 

If Christ commanded the apostles : “Teach all na¬ 
tions,” then there was the command for all nations, 
“Believe the Apostles”; if Christ prefaced his mission 
with these words: “To me is given all power in 
Heaven and on earth,” this meant: I have power suf¬ 
ficient to protect you, my ambassadors, from the prop¬ 
agation of error; if Jesus added: “I am with you all 
days to the consummation of the world, ’ ’ this expressed 
His desire constantly to exercise this protection; if, 
finally, He did not limit this protection to the life of 
the eleven apostles, then it is patent that He included 
all the lawful successors of the apostles, at least, as a 
whole. Certainly the teaching office of Christ and 
His Church is not supposed to have attained its end 
with the death of these eleven men ! 

3. Of two-fold interest is another passage of the 
Sacred Scriptures, since it furnishes further testimony 
for the Catholic hierarchical principle of authority, 
and at the same time shows us by a practical example 
how the primitive Church and the Apostles themselves 
acted in perfect accord with the Catholic spirit of 
authority, and not in the Protestant spirit of private 
interpretation. 

There originated in the Church of Antioch a 
diversity of opinion as to whether the Mosaic law was 
abolished by Christ, or whether it was still obligatory 
on Christians. At that time it was an open question, 
such as happens at the present day, and is decided in 
the Catholic Church by a Council, or by the Holy 
See ; for we Catholics are convinced that with such a 
decision the affair is settled. We have confidence in 
the promises of Christ, and believe that He would 
never permit the supreme teacher appointed by Him 


ACTS OF THF APOSTILS. 


197 


in the Church, to err; for should he err, the entire 
Church would certainly continue in error, in contra¬ 
diction to the promises of Christ. On the contrary, 
you Protestants in such disputed questions submit 
everything to the private interpretation and subjective 
views of the individual. For instance, should the 
supreme council of the church in Berlin declare that 
Christ is present in the Eucharist, you would simply 
be amused, but would scarcely believe (unless you had 
already believed, independently of this decision). 

Now let me see how the first Christians and the 
Apostles treated such disputed questions, — whether 
they taught and acted as Catholics, or as Protestants. 

The question to be decided was: Whether, or in 
how far, the obligation of the Mosaic law had ceased. 
And how was the question solved ? ‘ ‘They determined 
that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other 
side, should go up to the Apostles and priests to Jeru¬ 
salem, about this question.” 

When they arrived at Jerusalem, “the Apostles 
and the ancients assembled to consider of this matter. 
And when there had been much disputing, Peter ris¬ 
ing up” spoke in opposition to the further obligation 
of the Mosaic law. After Paul and Barnabas also had 
spoken, it was decided to send to the congregation at 
Antioch the following document containing an account 
of the proceedings: 

“The Apostles and ancients brethren to the breth¬ 
ren pf the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria 
and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard 
that some going out from us have troubled you with 
words : subverting your souls, to whom we gave no com¬ 
mandment: It hath seemed good to us, being as- 


198 AUTHORITY OR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION? 

sembled together, to choose out men, and send them 
unto you with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul, 
men that have given their lives for the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and 
Silas, who themselves also will by word of mouth tell 
you the same things. 

For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, 
to lay no farther burden upon you than these necessary 
things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to 
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and 
from fornication; from which things keeping your¬ 
selves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.” 1 

To this account of the Acts of the Apostles I need 
add no explanation; it exhibits too strikingly the 
Catholic principle of authority in opposition to the 
private interpretation in which Protestants seek refuge. 
“It has pleased the Holy Ghost and us,” so the 
“Apostles and ancients” decided, and so, with us 
Catholics, the assembly of the Church decides; but 
what astonishment, what amusement, would be occa¬ 
sioned if, for example, the Supreme Church Council 
in Berlin, London, Chicago, or San Francisco, should 
dare to decide solemnly a controversy of faith with 
these words: “It has pleased the Holy Ghost and us”! 

The passage speaks with such force in favor of the 
Catholic, and against the Protestant Church-principle, 
that a Protestant scholar believed himself obliged to 
deny and wrest from me the genuineness of the pas¬ 
sage by text-criticism. In my book “Church and 
State” I made the same use that I have here made of 
this particular text. Mr. Kohler, the counsellor in 
chief of the consistory, was driven to attack this text, 

1 Acts, XV. 


THE DISPUTED “KAl”. 


199 


because in his exhaustive discussion of my work on 
ultramontane statements he had admitted: ‘ ‘ This 
starting-point once conceded, the Catholic principle is 
the logical outcome.” 1 The one thing necessary, 
therefore, was to do away with the fatal text, and with 
it the Catholic principle of authority, by setting it 
aside as not grounded on the Holy Scripture. 

“The so-called Apostolic council,” writes Kohler 
accordingly in his criticism of my book, “had written 
[Acts XV, 23] to Antioch: ‘ The apostles and the 
ancients, the brethren send greeting,’ etc., that is, the 
bishops and priests. This quotation is from the Vul¬ 
gate, but in the original it is as follows : ol air 6 o-To\oi Kal 
oi irpea^repoL Kal ol ade\(pol : “The apostles, the ancients, 
and the people give information. ’ ’ 2 

The truth is, that Mr. Kohler has confused the 
so-called textus Graecus receptus with the original text, 
as I proved to him at the time. 3 The five oldest and 
best manuscripts (the Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, 
Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Syri rescriptus and Canta- 
brigiensis) do not contain the questionable “and” at 
all, and the most prominent Protestant exegesists 
(among them Tischendorf, Eachmann, Bornemann, 
Buttman, etc.) have decided in favor of the Vulgate 
text against the textus Graecus receptus , which, by the 
way, Hase, one of the first of Protestant polemics, 
explains as “nothing more than an accidental, un¬ 
reliable production, — the work of a learned printer.” 

You must agree, therefore, to leave the decision of 
the Apostolic councils to “the apostles and the an- 

1 Theologische Litteraturzeitung v. Harnack u. Schiirer, 
Leipzig, 23. Febr. 1884, Sp. 99. 

2 Theol. Litteraturztg. a. a. O., Sp. 97. 

3 Theol. Zeitschrift, Innsbruck, 1. Juli 1884, S. 624—626. 


200 AUTHORITY OR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION ? 

cients brethren,” as the hierarchical superiors of the 
Church in the Catholic sense, but not at the same time 
including the laity; because Mr. Kohler’s version : 
“The apostles and the ancients and the brethren” is 
false. Supposing, however, that there had been other 
“brethren” besides the apostles and ancients, that is, 
that the whole community of Jerusalem had indorsed 
the decision, what would follow? That the whole 
community (the laity included) had appeared as the 
teaching body ? Certainly this is a strange conclusion 
and proves of itself the ungenuineness of the “and” ! 
Nevertheless, the Protestant principle of private inter¬ 
pretation would not be the logical outcome of this 
conclusion ; for the Protestants of Breslau, Hanover, 
or any other province of Germany would, for instance, 
be as little moved to submission in matters of faith, 
were the whole population of Berlin—chief-consistory, 
pastors, and laity — to write to them “It has pleased 
the Holy Ghost and us,” as if the decree were issued 
by the chief-consistory alone. 

4. The Catholic hierarchical principle of authority 
is not, therefore, a recent invention, but a pure doctrine 
of Jesus Christ, contained in the Sacred Scriptures 
and practised in the primitive Church. Your Prot¬ 
estant “private” interpretation is, on the contrary, a 
return to paganism, a throwing off of the mild yoke 
which Christ imposed upon His faithful, and is a 
principle peculiarly conducive to anarchy, to the dis¬ 
solution and destruction of Christianity, to the ob¬ 
literation of the doctrines of Jesus Christ from the 
face of the earth and the hearts of men. “Private” 
interpretation was in high favor even among the 
ancient Greeks and Romans; but they were “as sheep 


NOT A RECENT INVENTION. 


201 


without a shepherd. ’ ’ 1 Heretics have always made 
friends with private interpretation, as St. Augustine 
tells us: 

“All heretics, indeed,” says he, “claim for their 
doctrines origin from Christ and the Apostles, and 
slander the Catholic Church because she dictates in 
matters of faith to all who come to her. She does not, 
however, impose any yoke of belief, but opens up the 
source of doctrine. This the heresiarchs also promise 
to do, without, however, being able to fulfil this prom¬ 
ise, and thus masking under the light of reason, they 
deceive the multitude. ’ ’ 2 

Either authority or anarchy, — Catholicism or 
private interpretation and in its wake the decay and 
dissolution of Christianity with its attending con¬ 
sequences : these are the alternatives. 

3. Extract from Edgar’s Tetter. 

Your last letter, reverend Father, forced me quite 
unmercifully to recognize the principle of authority in 
the Catholic Church as reasonable and even Scriptural; 
it forces me, if I would act logically, to believe all 
that the Catholic Church proposes to me for belief. 
Consequently, I feel two opposing currents; on one 
side, my mind sees that it must be so, that I must 
subject myself in matters of faith to the Church founded 
by Christ; but, on the other, I see a whole forest of 
objections which call aloud : It cannot be so; that 
there are too many errors and human inventions in 
the Catholic Church to allow me to recognize in her 
doctrines the pure and uncorrupted doctrines of Jesus 

1 St. Matthew, IX, 36. 

2 Augustine, De utilitate credendi, IX, 25. 


202 AUTHORITY OR PRIVATE) INTERPRETATION? 

Christ. Help me out of this labyrinth, Father, out of 
these hopeless contradictions! 

(Extract from Father H. ’s Answer.) 

With my whole heart I put myself at your service 
to solve all objections which may possibly appear 
against the Catholic faith; I say all, all without ex¬ 
ception. I will show you, either that the Catholic 
Church does not teach what you hold as Catholic 
doctrine, or that the real Catholic doctrine contradicts 
neither reason nor the Scriptures. But state your 
difficulties in detail; because one Protestant objects to 
this dogma of the Catholic Church, another to some¬ 
thing else ; one finds a stumbling block in Tetzel and 
the so-called sale of Indulgences, another in the Mas¬ 
sacre of St. Bartholemew and the Inquisition; while 
another objects to the honor paid to the saints, etc., 
I must first know your special difficulties. In the 
meantime, I will show you indirectly and in general 
what I have gained by my own experience, that is, 
that many of the supposed errors of Catholicism are 
not so important as its opponents would gladly 
maintain. 

A few years ago I gave in my “Erinnerungen eines 
alten Lutheraners’’ (“Memoirs of an aged Lutheran’ ’) 
a process of development which must with logical 
necessity lead from Protestantism to Catholicism. 
Besides the proof cited in my last letter, I presented in 
this book a considerable number of arguments show¬ 
ing that Protestantism is untenable, and that Catholi¬ 
cism is genuine original Christianity. The arguments 
were drawn from the unity of faith in the Catholic 
Church, from the continuance of miracles to the pres- 


WHY NOT DISCREDIT CATHODIC CDAIMS ? 203 

ent day, from the heroic faith of the martyrs, the more 
heroic active life in the Church, etc. 

Five leading Protestant newspapers reviewed my 
book, but not one dared to assail the main points ; all 
busied themselves with various minor questions, if not 
with personal attacks. In the “Stimmen aus Maria- 
Laach” I called the attention of one of these op¬ 
ponents — Mr. D. von Oertzen, editor-in-chief of the 
“Allgemeine konservative Monatsschrift” — to seven 
essential points for refutation. Not one of these did 
he touch upon in his answer. Meanwhile I published 
the second edition of my “Erinnerungen” (Memoirs) 
together with the five Protestant reviews of my book, 
including in full the second discussion by Mr. von 
Oertzen. The latter was the only one who answered, 
and he did not enter into the leading questions, but 
evaded them by provoking another controversy, which 
he treated in his own peculiar fashion. I attacked 
him again in the “Eaacher Stimmen” and drew atten¬ 
tion to his methods of criticism . 1 He had nothing 
further to say. 

Now I would like to ask : if Catholicism is so full 
of contradictions, so full of superstitious errors as you 
Protestants maintain as a settled fact, why has not 
some Protestant paper, or a Protestant theologian, 
pointed them out? Time, pains, paper, and printer’s 
ink have been used on me unsparingly, as may be seen 
in the exhaustive discussions on my book, but my 
critics have not brought forward or pointed out any 
error whatever in the Catholic doctrines, which I have 
defended as absolute truth. One of my Protestant re¬ 
viewers renders the following testimony to my “Erinne- 

1 Cf. “Stimmen aus Maria-Daach,” Bd. 27, p. 333. 


204 authority or private interpretation ? 

rungen” (Memoirs): “An attentive study of this phase 
of intellectual development leads to q, well-grounded 
doubt as to the correctness of a conclusion which is 
derived from purely logical reasoning. If we compare 
the doctrinal system of Catholicism and Lutheranism, 
the conclusion is always on the side of Catholicism. ’ ’ 1 

A remarkable avowal! If then, there is a contra¬ 
diction between logical thought (that is, sound human 
reason) and Lutheranism, if logical thought decides 
in favor of Catholicism, we are supposed to doubt 
“pure logical reasoning” rather than Lutheranism. 
A man must sacrifice sound common sense rather than 
become a Catholic! 

Here, my dear friend, you have a striking example 
of the influence of strong prejudice which binds Prot¬ 
estants to their Protestant views of life; they would 
rather sacrifice sound reason than be just to 
Catholicism. 

Be not like them : open your eyes. Cast off pre¬ 
judice, and investigate the Catholic Church to its 
innermost depths. If you find anything untrue, any¬ 
thing against the doctrine of Christ, any contradiction 
in her doctrines, you condemn the whole of Catholi¬ 
cism, and by this act the whole of Christianity. On 
this point you are certainly right. Be careful, though, 
not to judge harshly of the Catholic Church before you 
have thoroughly examined her doctrines; do not 
regard her according to the traditional Protestant con¬ 
cept, as the Spectre of the Middle Ages, full of super¬ 
stition. 

I await further objections on your part. 

1 “Deutsch. Eitteraturbl.” (Gotha, Perthes) vom 12. Mai 
1883, No. 6 , pp. 22, 23. 


4* The Bible, Tradition, and the Teaching Office 
of the Church. 

(Edgar’s Tetter. ) 

Reverend Father, your last letter gave me abun¬ 
dant material for meditation. I will tell you frankly 
the effect produced by it and by your previous letters. 
I saw clearly that if the Catholic Church is and always 
has been free from essential errors, the reformers were 
wrong in separating from her; it is my duty, there¬ 
fore, to condemn the separation by returning to her. 

The decisive point for me, therefore, is this : Does 
the Catholic Church oblige any of her members to 
accept error? This one point cleared up, I shall con¬ 
tinue to present you for solution any difficulty that 
may occur to me. For the present I submit the follow¬ 
ing : The Catholic Church has placed tradition and 
the doctrines of the Church, if not above, at least on 
an equal footing with the word of God. This is wrong 
and is a deviation from pure Christianity. What is 
your answer to this ? 

(Father H.’s Answer.) 

Permit me to explain how, according to Catholic 
belief, these three things, Scripture, tradition, and the 
teaching office of the Church are related. This done, 
your objection will be removed. 

According to Catholic doctrine, the Sacred Scrip¬ 
tures and tradition form what we call the source of 
faith ; because from these our faith is derived. The 
teaching office of the Church, on the contrary, forms 

(205) 


/ 


20 6 THK BIBI4, TRADITION, KTC 

the rule of faith (regula fidei ), which guides us in 
the attainment of truth so that we may not be led to 
maintain as a doctrine of Scripture or tradition what 
is not such in reality. 

i. First we will consider the source of faith, that 
is, Scripture and tradition. 

To the Sacred Scriptures belong, as you know, the 
books of the Old and New Testaments; to tradition, 
all other historical documents from which we can 
ascertain the doctrines of Jesus Christ, especially the 
substance of-divine revelation—the writings, therefore, 
of the ancient Fathers of the Church, the ecclesiastical 
customs (for example, infant baptism), the artistic 
remains, pictures, etc., in the Catacombs: in short, 
everything that throws light on divine revelation. 

These definitions given, I wish to show clearly 
that we Catholics honor the Sacred Scriptures far more 
than we do the writings, for instance, of Barnabas, 
Poly carp, Ignatius, or other Fathers of the Church, 
because the Sacred Scripture is purely the word of 
God, whereas this cannot be said of the writings of 
the Fathers, although they contain in a measure the 
word of God, that is, the teachings of Christ. Hence 
it is that the Church strictly forbids the use of the 
Sacred Scriptures for profane ends. For edification, 
on the other hand, she makes abundant use of them; 
the breviary containing the daily obligatory prayers of 
priests and religious is, for the most part, made up of 
passages from Sacred Scripture ; the same may be said 
of the Mass. Special reverence is shown the Gospel; in 
Solemn High Mass the deacon honors it with incense; 
while it is being read the people stand, and at the 
conclusion the priest kisses the missal from which it 
has been read. 


USE OF THE BIBEE BY CATHOEICS. *07 

Nor is the use of the Sacred Scripture by Catholics 
restricted to the divine service. To the theologian it 
is nothing less than the essential source of his know¬ 
ledge ; moreover, you frequently find the Bible in the 
vernacular in use by the Catholic population. Many 
German translations may be had, especially that of 
Allioli, which is approved by numerous bishops, and 
admirably annotated. With regard to the contents of 
the Sacred Scriptures, I wager you, and am willing to 
make the test, that, other circumstances being equal, 
Catholics rely upon Scripture far more than Prot¬ 
estants do. 

Not long ago, Professor Beyschlag, in his libel 
against the Right Reverend Bishop of Treves, again 
revived the old prejudice that the Bible is not held in 
due honor by Catholics. Whereupon Professor Einig 
and others answered him as follows : “To say nothing 
of the Bibles in the private and public libraries of the 
seminary, there are in the personal possession of our 
seventy - five seminarians in Treves the following 
editions : 

I. Texts of the Old Testament. 


1. Hebrew. 83 

2. Ratin. 104 

3. German. 109 

4. Various languages, especially the Greek 

(Septuagint). 6 

Total.302 

That is, four copies of the Old Testament for each 

seminarian. 








the bible, 'tradition, etc. 
II. Texts of the New Testament. 


2o8 


1. Greek., . . . 90 

2: Latin. 176 

3. German. 165 

4. Various languages. 29 


Total. 460 

In other words, six copies for each seminarian. 

III. Odd Volumes, especially the Psalms, the 
Gospels, St. Paul’s Epistles. 

1. In the original. 75 

2. German. 97 

3. Various languages. 40 

Total.212 

That is, three copies of individual books for each 

seminarian. ’ ’ 1 

Nor are you to imagine this esteem and consequent 
propagation of the Sacred Scriptures to have been awak¬ 
ened among Catholics by Protestantism. The Scriptures 
were used in the liturgy, in the manner just described, 
fully a thousand years before Protestantism originated; 
and the wide propagation of the sacred writings in 
the vulgar tongue began immediately after the inven¬ 
tion of the art of printing; therefore, before the ap¬ 
pearance of Luther. In Germany alone there were 
before the time of Luther at least sixteen editions of 
the Bible in high-German, five in low-German, and 
ninety-eight Latin translations; I doubt very much 
whether in our century and among Protestants, as 
many editions have appeared in so short a period. In 
the year 1493 Sebastian Brandt in his “Narrenschiff ” 
asserts : “All countries are now filled with the Sacred 
1 Einig, Goliath-Beyschlag, S. 29, 30. 













THE sacred scriptures safeguarded. 209 

Scriptures.“ From this, I may remark in passing, 
you can infer what is to be thought of the opinion so 
general among Protestants, that Futher “gave the 
Bible to the public. ’ ’ 1 

True, the Church did at certain times forbid the 
reading of unauthorized translations ; but this prohi¬ 
bition did not proceed from a lack of reverence and 
love, rather, on the contrary, from a desire to prevent 
an unholy use being made of the word of God, as 
really took place in England by the Puritans, and in 
Germany by the Anabaptists, through their reliance 
on badly translated or misinterpreted Bible - texts. 
Even in Scripture itself we find the following warning 
which is especially applicable to the Epistles of St. 
Paul: that in them are “Certain things hard to be 
understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, 
as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own 
destruction. ’ ’ 2 

The learned archb. of Westminster, Cardinal Wise¬ 
man, has very pertinently written : “If the one agency 
is hurrying the Bible (as far as Protestants are con¬ 
cerned) fast into the dark cavern of night and death, 
the other is no less sinking it into the very mire of 
human caprice, passion, and absurdity. The holy, 
the sublime, the awful Word of God, over which 
saints have meditated in cells for years of ineffable 
sweetness, yet of solemn reverence; round which 
scholars, pale with watching, have wreathed the 
flowers they have woven and culled in variegated 
commentaries; which the silver voice of virgins or 

1 For further remarks on this subject see Hammerstein’s 
“Katholizismus und Protestantismus”, S. 63 ff., ff. 

2 St. Peter, III, 16. 

14 


210 


THE BIBLE, TRADITION, ETC. 


the deep tones of holy monks have chanted in breath¬ 
less midnight, that no earthly sound might disturb the 
depth of their meditation ; this compilation of the one 
Spirit of God, from the providence of centuries, through 
which He alone has lived; this treasure of spiritual 
honey, drawn from a thousand flowers of various deli¬ 
cacy of perfume and flavor, not mixing, but each 
preserved; this gem of matchless price, reflecting in 
an infinite number of faces, the ever-varying yet con¬ 
stant image of God in His might, in His sweetness, 
in His anger, in His love, in His unity, in His Trin¬ 
ity, in His heavens, on His earth, on Sinai and on 
Calvary; this noblest, greatest, divinest of things un- 
sacramental, is put, indiscriminately, unceremonious¬ 
ly, into the hands of every one. It is the school-boy’s 
task-book, it is the jailer’s present, it is the drunkard’s 
pawned pledge, it is the dotard’s text-book, it is the 
irreverend jester’s butt, it is the fanatic’s justification 
for every vice, blasphemy, and profaneness which he 
commits. For into every one’s hand it must needs be 
thrust, from the Chinese to the Ojibbawa, from the 
Laplander to the Bosjman; from the child to the 
dotard, from the stuttering peasant to the glib, self- 
righteous old dame. ’ ’ 1 

This Catholic censure of your use of the Bible, or 
rather of your misuse of it, may seem perhaps too 
severe; but your own Protestant colleagues furnish a 
judgment quite as merciless. The “Evang. Kirchen- 
zeitung” writes: “Assuredly no one will assert that 
the Bible was written for children. . . . How can the 
Church (this means, of course, the Protestant Church) 

1 Wiseman, Miscellaneous Writings, Abth. 2 (Koeln, 
Bachem 1858), p. 5. 


THE BIBEE THE PURE WORD OF GOD. 


2 11 


justify the degrading of the Sacred Book to such vul¬ 
gar uses, and surrender it to purposes for which it was 
obviously never intended ? . . . . If the propagation of 
the Bible had brought such a great blessing, surely 
there would be some trace of it. . . . The question is, 
at what period have the more Christian opinions pre¬ 
vailed : in ancient times, when the only portions of 
Sacred Scripture known to the congregation were the 
pericopes and the postils, read at divine service with 
the catechism and hymn-book ; or at the present time, 
when the whole Bible is forced upon every individual 
without discrimination. ... In consequence, the sects 
have come at last to deny every rule of faith in the 
Church, and with the Bible in hand justify to their 
own satisfaction all possible errors. ’ ’ 1 

No Catholic could express himself in a more Cath¬ 
olic tone. If the “Kvang. Kirchenzeitung” would 
only tell us what rule of faith in their Church can lay 
claim to authority, since Protestantism owes its origin 
to the very rejection of the subsisting rule of faith, of 
the teaching office of the Church, and of the creeds 
established by her! 

This, however, in passing. I hope I have at least 
made one point clear: that we Catholics, while plac¬ 
ing certain salutary limits to the use of the Sacred 
Scriptures, do not on that account undervalue them, 
but, on the contrary, value them much more than all 
the writings of the Fathers of the Church, the decrees 
of the Councils, or of the Popes, because the Bible is 
the pure word of God. 

It is, moreover, proper that we should esteem the 

1 “Evang. Kirchenzeitung”, 1866, S. 191 ff.; cf. 1865, 
S. 1119 ff. (Hettinger, Apologie IV, S. 494, 495). 



212 THE BIBLE, TRADITION, ETC. 

Scriptures and tradition equally, as we believe and 
follow divine revelation wherever we find it, whether 
in the Sacred Scriptures or in other books. For it is 
quite possible that many doctrines of our Saviour exist 
not found in Sacred Scripture. St. John the Evan¬ 
gelist tells us : “But there are also many other things, 
which Jesus did: which if they were written every¬ 
one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to 
contain the books that should be written.’ 1 

Why could not Christ have said to the Apostles 
many things not recorded by the Evangelists, for in¬ 
stance, about infant baptism, keeping holy Sunday 
instead of Saturday ? And why should not these doc¬ 
trines have found a place in the established canonical 
customs and in the writings of the disciples of the 
Apostles? Finally, why should we not follow the 
teachings and precepts of Christ even though obtained 
from other sources than the Bible ? 

But you will object that these human traditions are 
not sufficiently authentic, hence Protestants reject 
them. 

To this I reply, if they are not authentic then you 
Protestants have no solid ground for believing that the 
so-called four gospels of the Evangelists were really 
written by Matthew, Mark, Euke and John; and still 
less that these and the Sacred Scripture in general were 
inspired by God and are the word of God. For if you 
reject tradition, what reason have you for maintaining 
that these writings are genuine and the word of God ? 
You will answer perhaps: “Because the authors of 
these writings belonged to the twelve Apostles”. But 
how do you know this without having again recourse 

1 St. John, XXI, 25; cf. XX, 30, 31. 


WITHOUT TRADITION, NO BIBUK. 213 

to tradition, or to the Sacred Scriptures, the authen¬ 
ticity of which likewise rests on tradition. Besides it 
is not true that all the writings of the New Testament 
were composed by the Apostles; Mark and Luke were 
not Apostles, but only disciples of the Apostles, like 
Barnabas and Polycarp, whose writings, however, you 
do not accept as the word of God. 

To evade the testimony of tradition you will per¬ 
haps assert that you can judge from internal evidence 
whether the various books are the word of God or not. 
In that case, I beg you to put this question to your 
consciousness; can you draw from internal evidence 
more authentic proof than from the historical testi¬ 
mony of tradition which you have rejected? How can 
you, for instance, determine from internal evidence 
that the letter of St. James, called by Luther the 
“straw” epistle, or the letter of Philemon, in substance 
only a letter of recommendation, is the word of God, 
and that the admirable letters of St. Ignatius are not? 

It may be that you wish to discriminate between 
genuine and false tradition. Very well. We Cath¬ 
olics, too, discriminate. To the genuine and authen¬ 
tic belong, not merely those traditions concerning the 
genuineness of the Sacred Scriptures, or the necessity 
for infant baptism, which you with us accept, but also 
the tradition for the primacy of the Pope, for pur¬ 
gatory, confession, the Mass, and other doctrines 
which you reject. 

Why not be logical! 

I once had a conversation with a person, who 
though at one time a Catholic had become (God 
knows from what motive) a Baptist. The conversa¬ 
tion turned naturally to infant baptism, which the 


214 THB BIBBK, TRADITION, ETC. 

Baptists reject as not being founded in Sacred Scripture. 
“I believe nothing that is not in the Sacred Scrip¬ 
ture,” my companion asserted warmly. “Indeed,” 
said I, dryly, “do you then believe that the gospel of 
St. Matthew is the word of God?” “Certainly,” was 
the reply. “But where,” I asked, “is it written in 
the Sacred Scripture that the gospel of St. Matthew 
belongs to the Sacred Scripture and is the word of 
God?” To this of course I received no answer. 

In my “Memoirs” I compared tradition and the 
Bible to the first and second stories of a house. We 
Catholics dwell in both, because we maintain both to 
be authentic. The rationalists abandon both, because 
they believe in neither. But you, Protestants, in the 
strict sense of the word, declare that the lower story 
(tradition) is unsafe, and for that reason live exclusiv¬ 
ely in the upper story (the Bible), not considering 
that if the lower story, the foundation, should col¬ 
lapse, tiie upper story will also topple. But why did 
not staunch Protestants, in reviewing this little book of 
mine, point out the inconsistency of the comparison 
(if it be inconsistent) and show without either sophis¬ 
try or appeal to tradition, how they attain to certainty 
regarding the genuineness and divine inspiration of 
the Sacred Scriptures? But instead of this, Professor 
G. Kaweran of Magdeburg indulged in the following 
bit of satire: 

“He identifies the government of the diocese of 
Rome, and the supremacy of the whole Church (s£c). 
Papal ambassadors took precedence at the Council of 
Nice, etc.; such are the beautiful traditions he con¬ 
siders as the firm and solid lower structure of the home 
in which Christianity dwells; upon this support rests 


THE RULE OF FAITH. 


215 


the upper story, the Sacred Scripture, and he cannot 
cease wondering that we Protestants are so foolish as 
to demolish the lower story. ’ ’ 1 

I openly avow that my conviction of the genuine¬ 
ness and divine inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures 
rests upon the proof drawn from tradition, as I pre¬ 
sented it to you in a previous letter. To this proof 
gathered from the testimonies of Christian antiquity 
by the learned Tischendorf, I could add many others. 
Moreover, I hold a proof of this nature to be authen¬ 
tic; and I accept it as readily in favor of Papal pri¬ 
macy, of the Mass, and other doctrines (supposing the 
proof to be fully as reliable) as I do that in favor of 
the genuineness of the Sacred Scriptures. If it does 
not seem authentic to Professor Kaweran, and he 
refuses to accept it as the lower story, on what then 
does he build? What is the foundation of his convic¬ 
tions of the genuineness of the Sacred Scriptures ? Or 
does his second story rest on air ? 

I repeat: we Catholics regard the Bible as the 
word of God, worthy of the highest reverence; we 
make use of it constantly, but that does not prevent 
our making use of tradition also as a source of faith, 
especially when there is question of genuineness and 
divine inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures. 

2. I now come to the rule of faith, that is to the 
teaching office of the Church, and to the question of 
the two-fold source of faith: Scripture and tradition. 
We Catholics are of the opinion that many Christians, 
for instance peasants, women, and children, are in¬ 
capable of understanding the Bible without assistance; 

1 Theol. Litteraturzeitung von Harnack und Schiirer, 
Leipzig, August 25. 1883, No. 17, Sp. 394—396. 


2l6 THB BIBBK, TRADITION, BTC. 

they cannot have recourse to archeological studies, to 
find out what books actually belong to the Bible; they 
are unable to criticise the text to see for instance, 
whether Mr. Kohler is right when he asserts that 
“and” stands in the original text of the Acts of the 
Apostles, or whether the Vulgate is right in omitting 
it. 1 Kven were it established which books are genuine 
and which are the original texts, most people not 
being able to read either Hebrew or Greek cannot 
make use of the original text; they must rely on the 
translator for a correct rendering of the Scripture. 
Before the invention of printing, it was, moreover, very 
difficult to procure a copy of the Scriptures. Hence, 
we Catholics understand clearly what is meant when 
we read in the Sacred Scriptures that Christ points to 
the living, teaching office of the Church as the guide 
of the faithful, and that He said to His Apostles: “He 
who hears you, hears me”. It is, therefore, the office 
of the Apostles and their successors the bishops, to 
search the Scriptures when questions arise in matters 
of faith; the faithful can then adhere to what the 
bishops present as the substance of the Scriptures. If 
the faithful themselves are incapable of making the 
necessary investigations, they are not tp follow ad 
libitum any university professor, or any printer, but 
the authority established by Christ. Such is our 
Catholic view of authority, and of the rule of faith 
which authority has established. This is our estimate 
of the relation of the teaching office of the Church to 
the sources of faith, — Scripture and tradition. 

Can it be said witjr truth that we place this teach- 


1 Cf. pp. 201, 202, 


THE TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH. 217 

ing authority above the Sacred Scriptures? With as 
little justice can the judge be said to place himself 
above the lawgiver when he interprets the laws and 
renders his decision according to them. We act ex¬ 
actly as did the first Christians of Antioch in the dis¬ 
pute about the further observance of the Mosaic law. It 
did not once occur to the individual Christian to defend 
his opinions by poring over the books of Moses and have 
recourse to archaeological and exegetical studies to 
prove the obligatory power of the law; instead, they sent 
to Jerusalem to Peter and the other Apostles present 
there, to inquire what they had to believe and how 
they were to act. Had they done differently, there 
would have resulted a destruction of the unity of faith, 
the formation of numerous sects, and, in the end, a 
general disintegration of Christianity. We Catholics 
attribute such power to the ecclesiastical authority 
only because we hold it to be infallible, at least in its 
final decisions. You Protestants cannot do this. For 
how can a theological faculty, or a supreme consistory 
wdth its decisions serve you as a rule of faith if you 
yourselves say that their jurisdiction, not being in¬ 
stituted by Christ, can have no claim to infallibility, 
that they have therefore very probably erred? You 
must say, and you do say after a fashion: “The Bible, 
nothing but the Bible, the Bible alone”. And as 
each one interprets the Bible differently numerous 
sects arise. 

As early as the fourth century St. Augustine 
(354—430) wrote: “If heresies and doctrinal opinions 
have arisen which have captured souls and plunged 
them into the abyss, it is only because the Sacred 
Scriptures though good in themselves have been 


218 the bibee, tradition, etc. 

misinterpreted, and these misinterpretations have been 
boldly and audaciously maintained. ’ ’ 1 

St. Hilary (died 368) asserts: “Consider that there 
is not a heretic who does not falsely maintain that his 
blasphemous preaching is founded on Holy Scrip¬ 
ture.” 2 

Tertullian (died 240) speaks to the point when he 
says: “Heretics reject individual books, or accept 
them only in part, add to them, and take away; and 
if they do accept anything completely, they explain it 
according to their own sense and disfigure the truth. 
Whatever contradicts them, they refuse to acknow¬ 
ledge, defending their position by their own inven¬ 
tions or ambiguous interpretations. Hence disputa¬ 
tion about the Scriptures results only in doubt, since 
for every truth, as well as for its contrary, the Bible 
can be made to yield proofs, and the investigator is 
even less certain after referring to it than he was 
before. ’ ’ 3 

Finally, St. Irenaeus (died 202) writes: “The 
Church is the entrance to life; all other roads are 
deceptive and dangerous like thieves and robbers; we 
must therefore avoid them, diligently hold what the 
Church teaches , and guard the traditions of faith. This 
is the rule of conduct in matters of faith for many bar¬ 
barous nations who believe in Christ without written 
testimony. ’ ’ 4 

But to show you how an unprejudiced, clear- 
minded Protestant judges in these questions, I will 
quote the following from Passing: 

1 Augustine in Joan tract 18 n. 1 (Migne, lat. 85, 1586). 

2 Hilarius ad Constant, II, 9. 

3 Tertullian, Praescr. c. 17, 18. 

4 Irenaeus haeres., Ill, 4. 


MESSING AND THE RUDE OF FAITH. 219 

§ i. “The tenor of those creeds is called by the 
ancient Fathers, the “regula fidei” (rule of faith). 

§ 2. “This “rule of faith” is not drawn from the 
writings of the New Testament. ’ ’ 

§ 3. “This “rule of faith” was in existence long 
before any individual book of the New Testament.” 

§ 5. “Not only were the Christians satisfied with 
this “rule of faith” during the life-time of the Apostles, 
but the Christians of the first four centuries also con¬ 
sidered it sufficiently complete for Christianity. ’ ’ 

§ '6. “This “rule of faith” and not the Scriptures 
is, therefore, the rock upon which the Church is 
built. ’ ’ 

§ 9. “The laity of the early Church were not 
allowed to read the separate parts of the New Testa¬ 
ment at all, at least not without the permission of the 
presbyters who had them in charge. ’ ’ 

§ 10. “ It was no small offense for the laity of the 

primitive Church, to show a readiness to believe the 
written word of an Apostle, rather than the living 
words of their bishops. ’ ’ 

§ 12. “During the first four centuries the writings 
of the New Testament were never used to prove the 
Christian religion, but were at most only used to 
elucidate and confirm it. ’ ’ 

§ 13. ‘ ‘The argument that the Apostles and Evan¬ 

gelists wrote with the view that the Christian religion 
could be entirely and sufficiently drawn from them and 
proven by them, cannot be adduced.” 1 

Further: 

§ 4. “Not only was the history of Christ known 
before it was written by the Evangelists, but the whole 

1 Eessing’s works, Berlin, 1825, Bd. 8, S. 22 ff. 


220 


EESSING AND THE RUEE OF FAITH. 


religion of Christ was already in practice before any 
of them wrote. ’ ’ 

§ 5. “The Our Father was said before it could 
be read in Matthew, for Jesus Himself had taught His 
disciples to say it. ’ * 

§ 6. “The formula of baptism was already in use 
before Matthew recorded it, for Christ had prescribed 
it to His apostles. ’ ’ 

§ 9. “Now if Christ dignified these things with 
his verbal order, why not all the others, which the 
Apostles teach of Him and which the world should 
believe of Him?” 1 

So far Tessing. I will not sanction unconditionally 
all that he says; for instance, that there could have 
been a contradiction between the written word of an 
apostle, and the expression of the ecclesiastical author¬ 
ity, — this is incorrect; furthermore, it is an exag¬ 
geration to assert that during the first four centuries 
the Christian religion was never proved from the 
New Testament. 

Apart from these points Tessing’s exposition is a 
thoroughly authorized, and, at the same time, over¬ 
whelming criticism of the Protestant principle of faith. 

I will summarize this letter under the three follow¬ 
ing heads: 

1. It is arbitrary, in the full sense of the term, to 
wish to derive the doctrines of Christ solely from the 
Sacred Scriptures, excluding tradition. 

2. It includes in itself even a contradiction, for 
what is derived from Sacred Scripture is derived in¬ 
directly from tradition, without which we do not know 
that the Bible is genuine and the word of God. 

1 Eessing’s Works, vol. 7, S, 4. 


THE LIVING AUTHORITY. 


221 


3. But even tlie Bible and tradition taken together 
do not insure the individual Christian sufficient cer¬ 
tainty of the teachings of Jesus Christ. With these 
must be combined the authority of the Church, which, 
graded by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, draws 
from the Bible and tradition sound doctrines and 
presents them in the name of Jesus Christ to the in¬ 
dividual Christian for belief. 

To believe all that Christ has commanded, one 
must not merely acknowledge Scripture and tradition, 
but must humbly subject himself to the living author¬ 
ity established by Christ; thus only will he be a faith¬ 
ful member of the Catholic Church founded by Christ; 
thus only will the wbrds of the Redeemer to the 
Apostles be verified: “Going therefore teach ye all 
nations . . . teaching them to observe all things what¬ 
ever I have commanded you; and behold I am with 
you all days, even to the consummation of the 
world! > ’ 



5. Councils and Creeds. 

(i. Extract from Edgar’s Letter.) 

It is becoming more and more clear to me that 
Protestants have no right whatever to inscribe on their 
banner “The Bible alone;’’ they themselves recognize 
this fact, and seek by all sorts of skilful evasions and 
distinctions to bring into credit again tradition and a 
living teaching office. But by so doing it seems to me 
they deny their own origin; for if I have recourse to 
tradition to prove the genuineness of the Sacred 
Scriptures, I have no reason to reject it when with 
equal force it confirms other Catholic doctrines. And 
if Protestantism originated by individuals setting up 
private interpretation against the teaching authority 
of the Pope and Councils, at that time held valid, 
then the Augsburg Confession cannot be insisted upon 
as a binding rule of faith, nor can the Protestant con- 
sistorial councils and chiefs be held as the living 
authoritative teaching office instead of the Catholic 
bishops. 

From Lessing’s assertions quoted by you, I see 
that the Church has always laid the greatest stress 
upon the creeds as well as upon the rule of faith 
established by the living teaching authority. Will 
you explain these matters more in detail, and especi¬ 
ally the ways and means by which the Church uses 
her authority ? 

2 . Father H.’s Answer. 

The Church exercises her teaching authority by 
preaching and instructing, but especially by general 
(222) 


THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 


223 


Councils, summoned to decide disputes in matters of 
faith. Frequently the result of such councils has 
been a creed in which the disputed points are more 
explicitly defined. Such a confession of faith forms 
forever after a fundamental law of the Church, and is 
believed and professed in humble submission by all 
Catholics. 

1. As early as the time of the apostles, but par¬ 
ticularly after their death, it became necessary to 
formulate such confessions of faith in order to present 
to the faithful a brief summary of the principal Chris¬ 
tian truths. Thus the Apostles’ Creed originated, the 
one taught you in your childhood. I quote it entire: 

“I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator 
of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only 
Son, our Ford; who was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pon¬ 
tius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He 
descended into hell, the third day he arose again from 
the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the 
right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence 
He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I 
believe in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Catholic Church; 
the Communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins, the 
resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.” 

You are astonished perhaps at my writing: “the 
holy Catholic Church,” and not “One holy Christian 
Church,” but the Greek KadoX^v and the Tatin 
catholicam can not be translated “Christian,” but only 
“Catholic” or “universal;” and thus it was rendered 
before the rise of Protestantism. The word “Cath¬ 
olic” was not agreeable to you Protestants, so you 
substituted “Christian” for “Catholic,” meaning by 


224 


COUNCILS AND CRKEDS. 


the Christian Church the aggregation of all Christian 
religious sects, these being considered as parts of the 
Church. We Catholics, on the contrary, understand 
that the Catholic Church of which the Apostles’ Creed 
speaks is a community of the faithful under one head 
— the Pope; and we consider the religious bodies 
which have separated from her merely as sects. 
Besides there is no Church which unites in itself both 
the conflicting tenets of these sects and the dogmas of 
the Catholic Church. Did such a one exist it would 
be a veritable Babylon, owing to its various contra¬ 
dictory doctrines. 

As to the Apostles’ Creed, you must know that it 
has lately been the occasion of much contention 
among Protestants; Professor Harnack of Berlin 
attacks it, while more orthodox Protestants defend it. 
And they are right in doing so: yet by this very 
defense they contradict themselves, inasmuch as they 
establish an obligatory norm independent of the Bible. 
Of course the Apostles’ Creed possesses a binding 
force, but only because it has been formulated by the 
Catholic Church, whose authority in matters of faith 
Protestants deny. 

However, let us consider the development of the 
creed. 

2. After the death of the Apostles, Christianity 
spread farther and farther, into the most distant 
regions. It now became more difficult for the bishops 
to assemble than it had been for the Apostles immedi¬ 
ately after the ascension of Christ. A further obstacle 
was encountered in the constantly renewed persecu¬ 
tions until at last Constantine the Great was converted 
to Christianity, and himself became active in assem- 


THE NICENE CREED. 


225 


bling a general council of the Church. Under him 
the first general Council of Nice was held in the 
year 325; this was the first general council of the 
Church, if we pass over the council of the Apostles. 

The principal object of the Council of Nice was to 
define clearly against the Arians the doctrine of the 
Divinity of Christ, — not that the Divinity of Christ 
had not been substantially believed before, but because 
the attacks of Arius necessitated a more explicit verbal 
expression of the doctrine. Thus the Apostles’ Creed 
was developed into the Nicene Creed, so that the 
Nicene symbol as we recite it at present in the Mass, 
(with a few additions which the Church made later) 
is as follows: 

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible 
and invisible. And in one Ford Jesus Christ the 
only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before 
all ages. God of God, Light of Light, True God of 
True God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with 
the Father; by whom all things were made. Who for 
us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven 
and became incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the 
Virgin Mary; and was made man. He was crucified 
also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was 
buried. And the third day he arose again, according 
to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, sitteth at 
the right hand of the Father; and He shall come 
again with glory to judge both the living and the 
dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And 
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the lord and giver of 
life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, 
who, together with the Father and the Son is wor- 
15 


226 


COUNCILS AND CREEDS. 


shipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets. 
And One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I 
confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I 
look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of 
the world to come. Amen. ’ ’ 

Compare both these creeds, the Apostles’ and the 
Nicene, and you will find that they confirm what I 
said on one occasion of the Old Catholics and the 
Vatican Council, that a continuous development of 
Christian doctrine is possible without the subversion 
of those doctrines previously existing. 

A development of this nature took place through 
the succession of general councils, held (according to 
the ordinary calculation) as follows: 

1. Nice I. (325), 

2. Constantinople I. (381), 

3. Ephesus (431), 

4. Chalcedon (451), 

5. Constantinople II. (553), 

6. Constantinople III. (680), 

7. Nice II. (787), 

8. Constantinople IV. (869), 

9. Eateran I. (1123), 

10. Eateran II. (1139), 

11. Eateran III. (1179), 

12. Eateran IV. (1215), 

13. Eyons I. (1245), 

14. Eyons II. (1274), 

15. Vienna (1311), 

16. Constance (1414—1418), 

17. Basle (1431—1437), 

18. Florence (1438—1444), 

19. Eateran V. (1512—1517), 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 227 

20. Trent (1545—1563), 

21. Vatican (1869—1870). • 

The confession of faith, the so-called Tridentine 

confession, formulated against Protestantism and re¬ 
cently against Old Catholicism, and to be professed by 
every Catholic is as follows: 

“I, (N. N.) with a firm faith believe and profess 
all and every one of those things which are contained 
in that creed which the Holy Roman Church maketh 
use of. Namely:—I believe in one God, the Father 
Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, 'of all things 
visible and invisible. And in one Ford, Jesus Christ, 
the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father 
before all ages. God of God; Fight of Fight; true 
God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial 
with the Father; by whom all things were made. 
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down 
from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of 
the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was cruci¬ 
fied also for us, under Pontius Pilate, He suffered and 
was buried, and the third day He rose again according 
to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven, and 
sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and He shall 
come again with glory to judge the living and the 
dead: — of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And 
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Ford and Giver of 
life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, 
who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored 
and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I 
believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I 
confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I 
look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of 
the world to come. Amen. 


228 COUNCILS AND CREEDS. 

“I most steadfastly admit and embrace the Apostol¬ 
ical and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and all other obser¬ 
vances and constitutions of the same Church. 

“And I admit the Holy Scriptures, according to 
that sense which our Holy Mother the Church has 
held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of 
the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; 
neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise 
than according to the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers. 

“I also profess that there are truly and properly 
seven sacraments of the New Eaw, instituted by Jesus 
Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of 
mankind, although not all of them necessary for every 
one. Namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, 
Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimon}"; 
and that they confer grace; and that of these, Bap¬ 
tism, Confirmation, and Order, cannot be repeated 
without the sin of sacrilege. 

“I also receive and admit the received and 
approved ceremonies of the aforesaid sacraments. 

‘ ‘ I embrace and receive all and every one of the 
things which have been defined and declared in the 
holy Council of Trent, concerning original sin and 
justification. 

“I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered 
to God a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice for the 
living and the dead. And that in the most Holy 
Sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and 
substantially the Body and Blood, together with the 
Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that 
there is made a conversion of the whole substance of 
the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of 


THK TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 229 

the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic 
Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that, 
under either kind alone, Christ is received whole and 
entire, and a true Sacrament. 

“I steadfastly hold that there is a Purgatory, and 
that the souls therein detained are helped by the suf¬ 
frages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints reign¬ 
ing together with Christ are to be honored and in¬ 
voked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and 
that their relics are to be held in veneration. 

“I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of 
the Mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of other 
Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due 
honor and veneration are to be given them. 

‘ ‘ I also affirm that the power of granting indulgen¬ 
ces was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use 
of them is most wholesome to Christian people. 

“I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, 
Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all 
Churches, and I promise true obedience to the bishop 
of Rome, Successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, 
the Vicar of Jesus Christ. 

“I likewise undoubtingly receive and profess all 
other things which the Sacred Canons and the General 
Councils, and particularly the Council of Trent and 
the Ecumenical Vatican Council, have derived, defined 
and declared, and in particular, about the supremacy 
and infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff. And I 
condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary 
thereto, and all heresies which the Church has con¬ 
demned, rejected, and anathematized. 

“I (N. N.) do at this present freely profess, and 
sincerely hold, this true Catholic Faith, out of which 


230 


COUNCILS AND CRLKDS. 


no one can be saved. And I promise most constantly 
to retain and confess the same entire and unstained, 
with God’s assistance, to the end of my life!” 

4. Such is our Catholic creed. It is just as sacred 
to us as those creeds composed fifteen centuries before; 
because the same authority has established both. 
These authorities are the bishops as the successors of 
the Apostles, and at their head the Pope as the suc¬ 
cessor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. For Christ 
has sent them, “to the end of time,’’ to “all nations’’, 
hence to us, to teach us, and we believe them upon 
His word. The Catholic may be a learned man or a 
simple peasant; he recognizes in the doctrines of the 
Church the word of God, not so much because by his 
learned investigations he sees that this or that doctrine 
is the doctrine of original Christianity, but because it 
is a doctrine of the present Catholic Church, to which 
he owes submission. If the scholar finds the doctrines 
of the Catholic Church confirmed by his investiga¬ 
tions, he rejoices ; if not, he is convinced that an error 
has glided in somewhere in his deductions, though 
apparently scientific. If the peasant cannot pursue 
such investigations, his faith is not on that account 
less certain and assured than that of the scholar. But 
if any one should accept all Catholic doctrines only 
on the ground of his own investigations, and not 
through submission to the authority of the Church, 
he would not be Catholic, though he might admire 
the consistency of the Catholic teaching, the beauty 
of Catholic worship, the social workings of Catholic 
order, etc. On the other hand, a person who under¬ 
stands enough to know that Christ has invested His 
apostles and their successors the bishops with authority 


WHAT IS ECCLESIASTICAL, TEACHING AUTHORITY. 231 

to teach, and commanded all to submit to their teach¬ 
ing, and on this ground submits to Catholic authority, 
is Catholic, even though he may be less learned in the 
details of Catholic doctrine. 

This is the meaning of our living ecclesiastical 
teaching authority, and of the creeds which it has 
composed. We honor them because they are abridged 
abstracts of our faith, taught us by our lawful Church 
authorized by Christ. 

You Protestants, too, have your creeds : the Augs r 
burg Confession, the Smalkald Articles, the formula 
of the Concordat, the thirty-nine articles, etc.; but 
they possess as much and no more authority than the 
men who formulated them. Therefore I do not find 
fault with any individual preacher, if he does not rely 
upon them, or if he occasionally rejects them ; for he 
has as much power in such matters as IyUther, Mel- 
anchthon, or Calvin. 

That such a rejection of the confessions of faith 
would put all positive Christianity out of order, can¬ 
not, of course, be doubted. And this is the necessary 
outcome of those first rebellions by which the Protes¬ 
tants of the sixteenth century deprived themselves of 
the lawful authority then existing. 

As the fruit of my letter I hope you are ready to 
repeat with me unreservedly, “I believe all that God 
has revealed, and all that His Holy Catholic Church 
proposes to us to be believed. ’ ’ 



6. The Vicegerent of Jesus Christ. 

(Edgar’s Letter.) 

Reverend Father, the concluding words of your 
last letter expressed a rather far-reaching desire. Be¬ 
fore I fulfil it, a few more points need clearing up. 

All depends on this, whether the Infallibility of the 
Pope is a doctrine of genuine Christianity or not. 
If it is, then I have no difficulty in accepting the 
clearly expounded articles of the Tridentine creed in 
every detail. For, obviously, what an infallible Pope 
establishes is free from error. But if the Pope is not 
infallible, then the Vatican Council has erred, and it 
follows that the general councils are not infallible, 
and, consequently, there is an end of your hierarchical 
conception of the Church. 

Indeed, I must draw a further conclusion — that 
the Church has erred since the Council of Nice, if not 
since the Apostolic Council; because your Catholic 
hierarchical principle of authority, which cannot he 
separated from the claim to Infallibility, is to be found 
everywhere. Logically, then, I must acknowledge 
the Infallibility of the Pope, or give up Christianity 
altogether, not knowing what to believe. 

But, on the other hand, how can a poor, sinful 
man be infallible? And where in primitive Christian¬ 
ity can the slightest allusion to an^ infallible Pope be 
found? Bishops only are mentioned, and above these 
perhaps the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and 
(232) 


THEOEOGIC AL, OBJECTION. 


233 


Rome, and later those of Jerusalem and Constantinople. 
Where was the infallible papacy in these early ages ? 

(Father H.’s Answer.) 

You are perfectly right; either the Pope is in¬ 
fallible, or there is no truth in Catholicism nor is 
there any even in Christianity. But your argument 
can be reversed: there is truth in Christianity and 
Catholicism, therefore the Pope is infallible. 

Your objection to infallibility is both theological 
and historical. 

1. The theological objection is expressed as follows: 
How can a poor, sinful man be infallible? I answer, 
by virtue of the gracious assistance of Jesus Christ and 
the illumination of the Holy Ghost. He who desires 
the end must also desire the means. If Christ desires 
that His flock be led in all truth, then He must guard 
the one He has constituted supreme shepherd from 
error while leading His flock; otherwise the shepherd 
would not lead the fold in the way of truth but into 
the paths of error. 

This is the fundamental principle in which you 
have the full extent of the papal infallibility; and in 
as far as this fundamental principle demands infalli¬ 
bility in the Pope, just so far is he infallible, and no 
farther. This principle does not require that the Pope 
Should be preserved personally from sin; therefore the 
Pope is not impeccable. It does not require that the 
Pope as a private individual should be infallible; he 
can therefore err — for example, when writing a theo¬ 
logical work, or a letter. Consequently, all the official 
documents issued by the Pope need not be free from 
error; for instance, there may be historical errors in 


234 


THE VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 


a breviary, although it has been approved by the Pope, 
and its recitation is obligatory on all priests, the obli¬ 
gation binding to recital as a prayer, and not to 
matters of belief. However, it would be rash to doubt 
without reason the truth of the legends contained in 
the breviary. This principle of infallibility demands 
that only such doctrinal decisions of the Pope as are 
final (the so-called decisions ex-cathedra), in which a 
definite doctrine is prescribed for belief, should be 
without error. For, since all the faithful are to hear 
the word of their supreme Teacher appointed by Christ 
as they would hear Jesus Christ Himself, if an error 
were contained in such a decision, the whole Church 
would be led astray, and the promise of Christ would 
be in vain; but since His promise cannot be in vain, 
Divine Providence must always protect the Vicar of 
Christ from false decisions. 

You will ask perhaps, how can Providence prevent 
the Pope from using this power thoughtlessly, since 
he has free-will ? Be assured that this as well as any 
other difficulty which you can adduce against Catholic 
doctrine has been suggested and solved centuries ago. 

Suarez (1548-1617), one of the greatest theologians 
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, writes: 

“The question has been raised: What would happen 
if the Pope should decide without previous careful 
examination of the matter ? Some say that in such a 
case the Pope could err, and that the Church could 
then refuse submission. But this is doubtful, because 
the Church cannot know whether the Pope has ,been 
sufficiently careful or not. Therefore, it seems to me, 
that the correct answer is that the case should be 
regarded as impossible; because the Holy Ghost, who 
guides the Church, will not permit the Pope to define 


OPINIONS OF BFBBARMINK AND BABBARINI. 235 

inconsiderately, hence we must suppose that, as often 
as he decides finally, his decisions have been preceded 
by sufficient examination. ’ ’ 1 I might add that God 
in this case could allow the Pope to make the correct 
decision without such previous investigation. 

Cardinal Bellarmine (1542—1621) expresses the 
same opinion, 2 in which he is supported by another 
eminent theologian, Ballarini: 

“Thus are set at rest the apprehensions of those 
who say it is dangerous to entrust infallibility in de¬ 
ciding controversies of faith to the person of one Pope, 
lest through a prejudice or preference for an incorrect 
opinion of his own, he might on some occasion define 
it as a real article of faith. He who grounds his fears 
on the consideration of the person of one Pope, meas¬ 
ures the decisions of faith according to human stand¬ 
ards, forgetting, first, that the dogmas of faith are 
divine, and that the infallibility of the Roman bishops 
is grounded on divine promises made to Peter, and 
that this power, according to the testimony of tradition, 
has descended with the primacy to Peter’s successors; 
and secondly, they forget that Divine Providence, 
working in various and hidden ways (in order that the 
divine promise may not be in vain), can bring about, 
and surely will bring about, that, if ever a Pope under 
the influence of prejudice or preference were on the 
point of rendering a false decision, he would either be 
absolutely hindered from giving the decision, or be 
held within the limits of such decrees as are not in the 
province of decisions of faith.” 

1 Suarez, de fide, 5, sect. n. 11. 

2 Bellarm., de Rom. Pont. IV, 2. 


236 THE. VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 

With this I may regard the theological difficulty 
as settled. 

2. The historical objection may be summed up in 
these words: The Infallibility of the Pope is something 
new, and the primitive Church knew nothing of the 
present position of the Pope. 

The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope is not 
so new as you Protestants imagine; this you may have 
already concluded from the passages quoted from 
Suarez and Bellarmine, who lived some centuries ago. 
As to the position of the Pope in earlier times, I would 
remind you of the confession of faith of Hormisdas 
(5 1 7) previously mentioned, signed by 2500 bishops, 
especially by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, to the 
following purport: “Because these words of our Tord 
cannot be changed: ‘ Thou art Peter, and upon this 
rock I will build my Church,’ so is that which was 
spoken proved by fact, because upon the apostolic 
chair religion has always been preserved uncorrupted. ’ ’ 
I know very well that you Protestants date the primacy 
of the Pope from a later time, and trace its origin to 
the false Decretals of Isidore, or I know not what else, 
but not to the institution of Jesus Christ'. This was 
certainly taught me in my youth. But this Protestant 
idea is unhistorical throughout; for go back, as far as 
you will, into Christian antiquity, and you find the 
primacy of the Pope. Your Protestant instructors, 
moreover, could learn this with very little study. If 
they would only look a little into Catholic literature, 
they would find the original documents,—for example, 
those referred to in Hettinger’s Apology, from which 
I have occasionally quoted. 

Previous to the time of Hormisdas, Pope Gelasius I. 


HISTORICAL OBJECTION. 


237 


(492—496) had already declared: “If the Roman 
Church could fall away, how would it be possible to 
refute any error, or where could the erring find cor¬ 
rection?” 1 — “For the words of Christ were not void 
of meaning when he said that the gates of hell should 
never prevail against the teaching of St. Peter. Hence 
we do not fear that the apostolic decision which, for 
the perpetual guidance of the whole Church, is sup¬ 
ported by the words of Christ, the traditions of our 
forefathers, and the authority of the canons, could 
degenerate. ’ ’ 2 

Pope Feo the Great (440-461) writes: “The solid¬ 
ity of that faith which our Ford commended in the 
Apostle Peter has passed from the Apostle to his suc¬ 
cessors; as that which Peter believed of Christ en¬ 
dures, so does that (endure) which Christ established 
in Peter.” 3 —“The ordering of the eternal truth re¬ 
mains therefore, and Peter, continuing in the rocklike 
firmness which he has received from the Ford, has 
never put from his hand the helm of the Church. ” 4 

In like manner Pope Innocent I. (402-417): “An 
insult is offered the Apostolic See if its final decisions 
be regarded as doubtful. From this See the other 
Churches should in the spirit of revelation and Church 
discipline receive their doctrinal decisions, just as 
water flows from its original source and pours itself 
forth in untroubled streams. When therefore a question 
in matters of faith arises, all the bishops should turn 

1 Gelasius ep. 12. ad Anastas., ap. Thiel, p. 352 (epist. 
8 . ap. Migne lat. t. 59 p. 44 A). 

2 Gelasius, Commonitor ad Faust., ap. Thiel, ep. 10. p. 
347 (Migne lat. t. 59 p. 30 C). 

3 Leo M., Sermo III. 2 (Migne lat. t. 54 p. 145 C). 

4 Leo M., Sermo III. 3 (Migne lat. t. 54 p. 146 B). 


23 B the vicegerent of Christ. 

to Peter alone, the origin of their name and of theft* 
honor. ’ ’ 1 

Pope Julius I. (337-352) makes in the year 342 
the following reproach: “Why have we not been ad¬ 
dressed directly by the Alexandrian Church? Is it 
unknown that it is the custom that we are the first to 
be addressed, and that from us proceeds the right 
decision?” 2 

3. Nor are these expressions of the Roman Bishops 
regarding their prerogatives entirely one-sided preten¬ 
tions, unrecognized by the other bishops. Far from 
repudiating these claims, the assembly of bishops has 
repeatedly given them recognition in the General 
Councils. To prove this of the later Councils down to 
that of the Vatican, would be superfluous. I will 
restrict myself therefore to the most ancient, held, 
moreover, in the Orient at a time when the political 
importance, once centered in the Roman Empire, had 
been transferred to Constantinople — a circumstance of 
itself sufficient to create a prerogative for any other 
bishop rather than the Bishop of Rome, had not the 
latter from the earliest ages, and by virtue of his suc¬ 
cession to the leadership of St. Peter, justly exercised 
the primacy. 

Eet us examine the four earliest General Councils. 

To the fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon 
(451), Pope Eeo the Great sent his three legates: 
Bishop Paschasinus of Eilybaeum, Bishop Eucentius, 
and the priest Boniface. The Bishop Paschasinus 
took precedence in the Assembly. “Peter has spoken 

1 Innocent I., ep. 29. ad Concil. Carthag. 

2 Julius I., ep. I. ad Antioch, n. 22 (Migne lat. t. 8 
p. 905 B). 


TESTIMONY OF THE COUNCIES. 2 $$ 

through Eeo’’, was the greeting of the assembled 
Fathers to the Pope’s declaration; and the Council, in 
its epistola synodalis to the Bishop of Rome, declares: 
“Thou in thy representatives hast held the leadership 
over the members of the synod, as the head over the 
members. ’ ’ 1 

As to the third General Council of Ephesus (431), 
Pope Celestine I. (423 — 432) appointed Bishops 
Arcadius and Projectus, and the priest Philip as his 
legates, with the admonition to hold fast to Cyril 
whom he had previously appointed his representative 
plenipotentiary in the Nestorian controversy. So 
Cyril presided at the first two sittings, June 24th, and 
July 10th, 431, when at the arrival of the three legates 
named above, they jointly presided with him. 

When, however, there is question of an imperial 
ambassador’s presiding at a General Council, it is to 
be understood in the sense in which Emperor Theo¬ 
dosius II. wrote to the Fathers at Ephesus. “I have 
now sent to your synod Candidian, the supreme Comes 
sacrorum domesticorum; but in the investigation of the 
dogma he is to take no part whatever; for it is not 
permitted anyone not belonging to the catalogue of 
holy bishops to mix in Church discussions. ’ ’ 2 The 
bishops at this Council gave their decision regarding 
Nestorius, “compelled by the canons and in accord¬ 
ance with the will of our holy father and fellow-servant, 
Celestine, Bishop of Rome .” 3 

1 Mansi, t. VI. p. 147; Harduin, t. II. p. 655 in Hefele’s 
History of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 33. 

2 Mansi, t. IV. p. 1119; Harduin, t.V. p. 1346 in Hefele’s 
History of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 35. 

3 Mansi, t. IV. p. 1238; Harduin, t. I. p. 1467 in Hefele’s 
History of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 10. 


^40 VlCEGFRFN? OF CHRIST. 

The Council of Constantinople in the year 381 was 
properly only a Council of the Eastern Church. The 
Archbishop (or Patriarch) Meletiusof Antioch, there¬ 
fore, presided, as first among the bishops present. 
After his death, and on the arrival of the Archbishop 
of Alexandria, the leadership was assumed by the lat¬ 
ter ; but the Council itself ordained in its third canon 
that the Bishop of New-Rome (Constantinople) should 
rank immediately after the Bishop of Rome. Accord¬ 
ingly, Gregory, Archbishop of Constantinople, presided 
at the assembly. Constantinople had originally pos¬ 
sessed a very unimportant bishopric, subordinate to 
the Metropolitan See of Heraclea. The grace of the 
emperors, henceforth Christian, procured for it how¬ 
ever, as the imperial residence, a higher rank. The 
recognition of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, as the 
successor of St. Peter, is nevertheless shown in this 
Council by the fact that the Roman Bishop takes pre¬ 
cedence even of the Bishop of the imperial place of 
residence. It was not until the synod was recognized 
by the Western Church that it was made one in the 
series of General Councils. 

We now come to the first General Council, that of 
Nice (325). Who presided at this Council? 

In my “Memoirs” (first edition p. 325) I made the 
following assertion: “The ambassador of the Pope 
presided at the General Council of the Church held at 
Nice, 325 A. d. * ’ The ‘ ‘Theologische Eitteraturblatt’ ’ 
(Eeipzig, February 16, 1883) pointed to this assertion 
as “a brilliant example of my numerous clashes with 
the invincible truth of history.” The “Blatt” adds 
scoffingly: “This is ‘the true state of affairs’ to which 
his studies have led him, after his training in evangel- 


Who presided at council of nice. 241 

ical doctrine had previously ‘fed him with gross his¬ 
torical lies.’ What an interesting study of sources 
that must have been!” Proofs, however, were not 
forthcoming from the Leipziger Theologische Rittera- 
turblatt. Professor Kawerau of Magdeburg (in the 
Theolog. Iyitteraturzeitung, Leipzig, Aug. 25, 1883, 
No. 17), as previously mentioned, also joined in the 
scoffing. 

L,et us, therefore, examine a little more closely this 
‘‘brilliant example of my numerous clashes with the 
invincible truth of history.” The Council of Nice 
took place in the fourth century. In the fifth century 
Gelasius of Cycicus wrote a history of it in which he 
asserts: ‘‘Osius (Bishop of Corduba, in Spain) appeared 
as the deputy of the Bishop of Rome, and was present 
at Nice together with two Roman priests, Vitus, and 
Vicentius.” 1 Athanasius as well as Theodoret pro¬ 
posed with regard to Osius the following question 
tending to his praise: ‘‘At what Synod has he not 
presided?” Socrates ranks the chief members of the 
Nicean Council in the following order: ‘‘Osius, 
Bishop of Corduba; Vitus and Vicentius, priests of 
Rome; Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria; Eustathius, 
Bishop of Antioch; Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem.” 2 

The three last named were the representatives of 
three out of the four most ancient patriarchal sees. 
But where was the legate of the fourth, the see of 
Rome, if Vitus and Vicentius did not exercise that 
office ? And how could the bishop of an unimportant 

1 Gelasius, volumen actorum concil. Nic. II., 5; in 
Mansi, t. II, p. 806, and Ilarduin, t. I, p. 375; cf. Hefele, 
His. of the Councils I, p. 40. 

2 Socrates, hist. eccl. I, 13. 

16 


542 THE VICEGERENT OR CHRIST. 

city in Spain, and what is more, two priests, who 
were, consequently, not even bishops, be ranked be¬ 
fore the three patriarchal sees unless they appeared as 
legates of the Roman See, which is missing? More¬ 
over, even the superscriptions of the councils are 
preserved, and, notwithstanding the many variations 
of the ancient Codices, we find iii all the copies, with¬ 
out exception, Osius and the Roman priests ranked 
first, and, immediately after, the patriarch of Alexan¬ 
dria and the others. In two copies Osius subscribes 
expressly in the name of the Church of Rome ; in two 
other copies this is made evident, not by him, it is 
true, but by the two accompanying priests, to show, 
perhaps, that they had the power to subscribe, although 
they were not bishops. Moreover, before each group 
of bishops is written the name of the ecclesiastical 
province to which they belong; this is wanting only 
in the case of Osius and the two Roman priests. They 
subscribe first, and without naming any diocese — 
obviously because they were above all dioceses, con¬ 
sequently above the whole Council, as legates of the 
Bishop of Rome. If an analogy be made between 
this and the other Councils, especially the Councils of 
Kphesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), at which the 
deputy from Rome presided (cf. sup. p. 163), no 
reasonable mind can doubt as to the one who presided 
at the first General Council of the Church . 1 

Such is the true state of affairs in the alleged 
“brilliant example of my numerous clashes with the 
invincible truth of history. ’ ’ 

No, my friend; the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, 

1 Cf. in this question, Hefele, History of the Councils, 
2nd edition, vol. I, p. 38—43. 


TESTIMONY OF ANTIQUITY. 


243 


and the infallibility necessary to the Head of the Church 
when giving final decisions in matters of faith, are not 
human inventions. It matters not how far back you 
follow the history of Christianity even to its very 
source, you will always find the same principles. And 
how could it be otherwise? Was it expedient that 
Christ, ascending to Heaven, should leave His Church 
without a supreme visible Head, without a supreme 
visible Teacher ? What was to become of the unity 
of the Church without such a Head ? And how was 
sufficient certainty in difficult questions of faith to be 
attained without infallibility in the Head of the body 
of faith ? And if the Bishop of Rome is not this in¬ 
fallible Head, who is? 

However, I am far from finishing with the histori¬ 
cal testimony in favor of the primacy and infallibility 
of the Pope; for you must admit that our proof from 
tradition for this specifically Catholic dogma, as it is 
called by Protestants, is just as strong as the traditional 
proof which they advance for the genuineness and 
inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and which you 
must accept as necessary if the Bible is to have aught 
else than air for support. 

Turning to the authors of Christian antiquity, 
I will begin with the Greeks, whose testimony is so 
much the more weighty as it was the Greek Church 
which always offered the most determined opposition 
to the Holy Roman See. 

Theodore of Studium (died 826), abbot of Constan¬ 
tinople, says of the Iconoclasts: “They have separated 
from the body of Christ, and from the Supreme Teach¬ 
ing See to which Christ committed the keys of faith, 
and which has never been, and never will be, prevailed 


244 THE VICEGERENT of CHRIST. 

against by the gates of hell; that is, the mouth of 
the heretics.” 1 

Maximus of Constantinople writes in the seventh 
century: “All look to Rome, as to the sun, to receive 
therefrom the holy faith; there is the foundation of 
the universal Church, against which, according to the 
words of Christ, the gates of hell shall not prevail, 
and which possesses the keys of unerring faith and 
knowledge, to open to everyone coming to her the 
true religion, and, on the other hand, to close up 
every heresy proceeding from the mouth of blas¬ 
phemy. ’ ’ 2 

“Penance,” writes Fulgentius (467), “is of great 
benefit to the sinner if exercised in the Catholic 
Church, to which God in the person of St. Peter has 
given the power to bind and to loose. ” 3 

Peter Chrysologus (died 451) writes to Eutyches, 
abbot of Constantinople: “In all we admonish thee to 
follow obediently what the Pope of the City of Rome 
has written, because St. Peter who lives in the See 
committed to him, and holds precedence, offers to 
those who desire it, the benefits of faith.” 4 

Emperor Valentinian III. in the year 445 gave 
public recognition to the precedence of the Roman 
See, in the following declaration: “Nothing should 
take place without the approbation of the Roman 
Bishop, because it is only when the whole body 
recognizes its ruler that peace is preserved throughout 
the Church. This has been inviolably observed to 

1 Theodor Stud., I. II. n. 63 (Migne gr. t. 99, p. 1281, A). 

2 Maximus, opusc. theol. II. p. 72 ed. Combef. 

3 Fulgent., De fide ad Petr. c. 3, n. 37 (Migne lat. t. 65 
p. 690 B). 

4 Petr. Chrysol. inter L,eon. ed. Bailer, p. 797 ep. 25. 


the: imperial sanction. 


245 


the present. The decisions of the Roman Bishop 
would hold even without imperial sanction, on account 
of the merits of St. Peter, who is the head of the 
assembly of bishops. But our imperial word is also 
demanded that it may not be allowable for any one to 
deny the behests of the Roman Superior. ’ ’ 1 

Saint Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (died 444), 
turns to Pope Celestine with the request that he would 
make known: whether he (Cyril) could hold ecclesi¬ 
astical intercourse with Nestorius, the patriarch of 
Constantinople, or whether he was to declare openly 
that none should hold intercourse with those who 
believed and taught such doctrines (as Nestorius). 
“Every thing,” so he declares to the Pope, “must be 
brought to the knowledge of your Holiness.” Nor 
will Cyril come to any decision until the decision of 
the Pope is obtained, and refers in this, to the time- 
honored custom of the Church. 2 

‘ ‘Rejoice, ’ ’ exclaims the Armenian historian, Moses 
of Khorni (in the fifth century), ‘ ‘rejoice, Capital of the 
World, thou who art crowned with the light which radi¬ 
ates from the countenance of thy apostle, thou who dost 
enlighten the whole earth with thy rays of light. ” 3 

St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo in Africa (354— 
430), writes in reference to the Roman See, “To this 
Roman Chair of unity, God has committed the doc¬ 
trine of truth.” 4 

“In this Chair so ancient and so solidly founded,is 

1 Inter opp. Teon. ed. Bailer. I. p. 642. 

2 Cyril Alex., ep. 11 n. 7 ad Coelest. (Migne, gr. t. 77 
primatur, Romae 1870. 

p. 83 D). 

3 Anzarian, Eccl. Armenae traditio de Rom. Pontificis 

4 St. Augustine, ep. 105 n. 16 (Migne lat. t. 83 p. 403). 


246 


THE VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 


consequently the certain and clear Catholic faith 
which no Christian may doubt.” 1 

“There were many apostles, but only one to whom 
it was said: Feed my sheep. So has the Lord in this 
one apostle Peter, transmitted unity.” 2 

St. Jerome (340—420), writes to Pope Damasus: 
“Since I wish to follow no one but Christ, I associate 
myself with your Holiness, that is, in communion 
with the See of Peter; for I know that on that rock 
the Church is built; who partakes of the Lamb out¬ 
side this House is godless. All that are not in the Ark 
of Noah, will be submerged. . . . Who does not gather 
with Me scattereth. Who is united with the See of 
Peter is mine. ... I beseech your Holiness to make 
known unto me with whom I am to hold ecclesiastical 
communion in Syria.” 3 

St. John Chrysostom, consecrated archbishop (or 
patriarch) of Constantinople February 26, 397, (died 
407), says regarding the conversation between Jesus 
and Peter: “Why does He (Jesus) address him 
(Peter) in preference to the others? He was distin¬ 
guished among the Apostles, the mouth of the dis¬ 
ciples and the head of the community; for that reason 
Paul came to see him before seeing the others. He 
(Jesus) showed him at the same time, that he (Peter) 
should now have confidence, and, forgetting his 
denial, he gave him the leadership of his brethren. ’ ’ 
“So has the Lord constituted Peter the teacher of the 
whole world and confided to him the care of the whole 
world, not appointing him, like James, bishop of one 

1 Id. ep. 190. n. 23 (ibid. p. 866). 

2 Id. Sermo. 46 c. 13. n. 30 (ibid. t. 38 p. 287). 

3 Hieron., ep. 15. (Migne, lat. t. 13 p. 181 seqq). 


TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 247 

city. ’ * 1 But if it was necessary at the departure of 
Jesus, that a visible head of the whole Church should 
be appointed in the person of Peter, so at the death of 
Peter the same need must have existed, and Christ 
foreseeing it, must have provided a successor of Peter. 

From St. Chrysostom we turn to St. Ambrose 
(died 397), the great bishop of Milan. “Where Peter 
is,” he asserts, “there is the Church, and where the 
Church is, there is no death, but eternal life; for that 
reason he (Christ) added: And the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against her, and to thee I will give the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven. ’ ’ 2 

Returning to the Eastern Church we hear the 
words of St. Gregory of Nazianzen (died 390) calling 
Rome “the head of the whole community.” 3 

Optatus of Milevum (fl. 360) declares: “For the 
well being of the unity, Peter deserves to be preferred 
to all the Apostles, he alone receiving the keys that 
he may communicate them to others. Thou canst 
not deny,” he opposes to the Donatist Parmenian, 
“that to Peter as to the first, has been given the epis¬ 
copal See of the City of Rome. In this one teaching 
chair the unity of the whole shall be preserved in¬ 
violable, none of the other apostles claiming it for his 
special See, so that he who would set up another 
against this one living Teaching See would by the fact 
be a schismatic. ’ ’ 4 

1 Chrysost. ill Joan. hom. 88, 1 (Migne, gr. t. 59 p. 
478—480; cf. Gal. 1, 18 and 19, II, 2. 

2 Ambros. in Ps. 40, 30 (Migne, lat. t. 14. p. 1082 Ap.). 

3 Greg. Naz., Carmin. 1. II. sec. 1. de se ipso v. 571 
(Migne gr. t. 37. p. 1068). 

4 c. Parmeu. VII, 3; IT, 2 (Migne, lat. t. 11. p. 1087 A; 
p. 947 A). 


248 


THE VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 


About the same time the heathen writer Ammianus 
Marcellinus designates Pope Tiberius (352—366) as 
“the leader of the Christian religion;” 1 and, even 
earlier, Emperor Aurelian (270—275), upon the re¬ 
sistance of the deposed Paul of Samosata, declared: 
“He is to be the bishop of Antioch whom the bishops 
of Italy, especially the bishop of Rome, shall re¬ 
cognize.” 2 

We now come to the greatest bishop of the African 
Church, St. Cyprian, who can unfold to us better than 
these heathen witnesses, the substance, the purpose, 
of the primacy and its institution by Christ. 

“On Peter,” so says St. Cyprian, “the Eord has 
built the Church. Hence there is but one baptism, 
one Holy Spirit, and one Church as to origin and 
organization by Christ upon Peter. ’ ’ The Lord said 
to Peter: I say to thee thou art Peter, that is rock, 
and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatso¬ 
ever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound also in 
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall 
be loosed also in heaven. And again after the Re¬ 
surrection: Feed my sheep. And if after the Resurrec¬ 
tion he conferred equal power on the Apostles saying: 
As the Father hath sent me I also send you, neverthe¬ 
less, in order to manifest to the world this unity, He 
instituted a Teaching Chair and made its authority 
the source of this unity, so ordering that it should 
proceed from one person. The other Apostles were, of 
course, partakers equally with Peter in honor and 

1 Ammianus Marcell., Rer. gest. XV, 7, 6 . 

2 Codex Justin. I. Tit. 1, c. 7. 8. 


TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 


249 


power; but the beginning proceeds from a unity, that 
the Church may appear as one. How can he who 
does not guard unity in the Church hope to preserve 
unity of faith? .... So the episcopate is one, a unit 
(through dependence on the source of unity) in which 
the individual is a part of the whole (episcopatus 
unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur). 
So also the Church is one, which waxing continually 
in fruitfulness, spreads more and more among the 
peoples. As the sun has many beams but only one 
light; as the tree has many branches, but only one 
trunk proceeding from the firm root; as one spring 
may be the fountainhead of many brooks, still pre¬ 
serving unity in the source; so, too, in the Church 
there is only one Head and one source, and one Mother 
of a fruitful posterity. 1 Which head St. Cyprian 
declares in the opening of the passage to be Peter and 
his Teaching Chair, the visible vicegerent of the in¬ 
visible head, Jesus Christ. 

“Peter,” says Origen (died 524) “is the founda¬ 
tion of the Church and the invincible rock on which 
Christ has built his Church. ’ ’ 2 

“Remember,” says Tertullian (died 240) “that 
the Lord has bequeathed the keys to Peter, and 
through Peter to the Church. ” 3 To him, therefore, 
the Roman bishop is the “Bishop of the bishops.” 4 
And of the Roman Church he cries out: “Happy the 
Church over which they (the Apostles) have poured 
out, with their blood, their entire apostolic doctrine; 
in which Peter is conformed to the Lord in his 

1 Cyprian, de unitate Ecclesiae c. 4. 5. 

2 Origenes, hom. 5. in Exodum. 

3 Tertull., Scorp. n. 10. 

4 Tertull., de pudic. c. 1, 



250 THE VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 

Passion” (by his death on the cross), “in which Paul 
is crowned by the death of a John” (beheading). 1 In 
contrast to this certainty of faith which Catholics 
possess by their adherence to the Roman See, he 
challenges the heretics thus: “Let them examine the 
beginning of their Churches, trace the series of their 
bishops, how from the beginning one follows the 
other, and they will find that the first Bishop had as 
guarantee and predecessor one of the Apostles or 
apostolic men in communion with the Apostles. ’ ’ 2 

The heaviest cross, however, to Protestant theology 
is a passage from Irenaeus, the great Bishop of Lyons 
(177—202), who refuting the heretics of his time, 
appeals to tradition and the deposit of faith found in 
the episcopal sees established by the apostles, and 
especially to the authority of the Roman Church with 
which all must needs agree. “But because it were 
very long in such a work as this to reckon up the 
succession in all the Churches; there is one great, 
and most ancient and known to all, the Church 
founded at Rome by two most glorious Apostles, Peter 
and Paul, whose Tradition which it hath from the 
Apostles, and her faith proclaimed unto men by 
succession of Bishops coming down even unto us, we 
point to, thereby confounding all those, who in any 
way form undue assemblies, on account either of self¬ 
pleasing ways, or of vain glory, or of blindness and 
wrong opinion. For with this Church , on account of its 
high original , the whole Church (/ mean the faithful on 
all sides') must needs agree; wherein the Tradition 
which is of the Apostles hath ever been preserved by 

1 Tertull., de praescr. haer. 36. 

2 Tertull., de baptismo c. 32. 


TKSTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 251 

them of all countries. ” For the Bishop of Rome, as 
St. Irenaeus continues, ‘is the successor of Peter; Peter 
had Linus as successor, Linus another and so on, 
down to the twelfth Pope, the holy Eleutherius 
(177—192), who at present (at the time of Irenaeus) 
occupies the See of Peter. ’ 1 

Irenaeus therefore, who was born about the year 
130 A. d. , within perhaps thirty years of the death of 
St. John the Evangelist, and seventy years after the 
martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome, recognizes the 
Roman See even then as “the one very great and most 
ancient, and known to all the Church founded and 
established at Rome by two most glorious Apostles 
Peter and Paul,” with which,“on account of its high 
original, the whole Church, i. e. the faithful on all 
sides, must needs agree.” The Vatican Council could 
scarcely have expressed in clearer terms the infallibil¬ 
ity of the Roman See! For in case an error should be 
taught by this See with which the Church the world 
over must needs agree, the whole Church would 
accept this error, Christian truth would be distorted in 
one point, man would fall into doubt on other points, 
and it would be necessary for Christ to reappear, in 
order to bring back the full truth, and in this second 
coming to make a better provision against a second 
disfiguration of His doctrine. 

5. After having read these testimonies from orig¬ 
inal sources, what do you think of the recent opinion 
widely held by Protestants that Peter never lived in 
Rome? In support of this view they do not adduce 
any convincing proofs, but simply refer to the fact 
that this or that writer does not mention Peter’s 

1 Irenaeus adv. haer. Ill, 3 , 2 . 


252 


THK VICFGFRKNT OF CHRIST. 


presence, or that the latter could not have been in 
Rome during the whole period from 42—67, with 
similar assertions. And we are supposed out of con¬ 
sideration for such trifles to call into question a fact 
universally accepted since the days of St. Irenaeus! 

St. Clement writing from Rome during the time of 
Domitian, and referring to the persecution under Nero 
and the martyrdom of St. Peter, adds: u These men 
who have consummated their lives in so holy a manner , 
were accompanied by a great number of the elect , who have 
become for us most beautiful examples.” 1 In fact, St. 
Peter himself, in his first epistle to the Christians in 
Asia, sends greeting from the “Church in Babylon;” 2 
and among the Jews and primitive Christians “Baby¬ 
lon” was the symbolic name for Rome. 3 

6. However, let us return to the Roman primacy. 
We have traced it back close to the time of the 
Apostles. Almost immediately after the time of St. 
John, St. Ignatius calls Rome the “leader in the 
league of love;” and still earlier St. Clement, the 
third successor of Peter, writes to the Corinthians in 
such a way that one can plainly recognize in his letter 
the voice of the Chief Shepherd of the Church, a 
voice, too, which the Corinthians obeyed. 

7. Nothing remains now but to prove from 
Christ’s own words in the Gospels this appointment of 
His vicegerent. 

But first let us get a clear idea of the point in 
question. 

1 Clemens, 1. Corinth. 6. 

2 Peter, 5, 13. 

3 Apoc. John, XIV. 18; XVI. 29; XVII, 5; XVIII, 2; 
cf. Hundhausen, Die beiden Pontifikalschreiben des Apostel- 
fiirsten Petrus, Bd. I, S. 82—90, 


THK PRIMACY IN SCRIPTURE^ 253 

Christ wished to unite in one powerful kingdom of 
God, a kingdom of truth — all mankind, who after the 
sin of our first parents had lost knowledge of the true 
religion and had sunk into the most frightful errors. 
There was to be but one Shepherd and one Fold. 
This end could be attained in one of two ways: He 
himself might remain on earth for all time as the 
visible king of this realm of truth, the visible Shep¬ 
herd of this Fold; or He could leave another as his 
vicegerent, to represent Him in the exercise of the 
visible authority till the Day of Judgment. 

Obviously it was not His will to make use of the 
first means. Why? It is not our province to in¬ 
vestigate His reasons. The second way of attaining 
His end was still open, that is, the appointment of a 
vicegerent who should feed the whole flock in unity. 
I say one vicegerent, for it could in no wise have been 
the intention of Christ to leave His Church without a 
representative, or to have appointed several, entirely 
independent of each other, like the four patriarchs. 
Either of these latter alternatives would have been less 
adapted to the purpose, than the constituting of one 
visible Head for the one visible organization of the 
Church. Hence, although Christ chose twelve 
apostles, He committed the supreme guidance, ob¬ 
viously for the sake of unity, to one, and that one was 
Simon Peter, whom he had from the beginning trained 
for the office of chief vicar. 

At their first meeting Christ changed the name 
“Simon” to “Peter” (rock). 1 Whenever St. Matthew 
enumerates the twelve apostles, he begins thus: “The 
first: Simon who is called Peter” (although Peter was 

1 St. John I, 42. 


254 


THE VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 


called later to the apostolate than Andrew, his 
brother). 1 

Throughout the gospels and the Acts of the 
Apostles, Peter appears everywhere as the leader of 
the apostles. 2 

Tuke speaks of numbers of the disciples simply as 
“Peter and his companions.’’ 3 

After the departure of Jesus, Peter immediately 
undertook the guidance of the apostles and the infant 
Church, and caused a successor to Judas to be chosen, 
in the person of St. Matthias; he delivers too, the first 
discourse to the people, etc. 

8 . The office of supreme ruler of the Church 
was, however, expressly promised by Christ to Peter 
and his successors for all time, in the words of the 
sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew which I have quoted 
in the course of our correspondence 4 and which we 
meet with continually in the Fathers of the Church. 

Christ had asked the disciples whom the people 
thought Him to be, and for whom they themselves 
held Him. Peter answered with ardent enthusiasm: 
“Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus 
rewarded his faith with a reciprocal acknowledgment: 
“Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and 
blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my father who 
is in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter; and 

1 St. Matthew X, 2. 

2 St. Matthew XV, 15; XVI, 16, 22; XVII, 1. 4. 23; 
XVIII, 21; XIX, 27; XXVI, 37, and similarly in the other 
gospels. For the life after the Resurrection compare Acts of 
the Apostles, I, 13, 15; II, 14, 37, 38; III, 6, 12; IV, 8; V, 
3, 15; VIII, 20; IX, 32 ff.; X, 5 ff.; XV, 7 ff. 

8 St. Luke, IV, 32: Iler/jos nai oi <ri>v abr$. 

< Cf. p. 55. 


PETER THE FOUNDATION. 


255 


upon this rock I will build my Church.” But this 
was not enough. To show that building upon Peter 
was to impart eternal solidity to the Church, the 
Saviour adds: ‘‘And the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against her.” As long as the Church shall last, she 
shall draw her solidarity from Peter, and Peter shall 
live, — not indeed in person — but in his successors; 
for he is the foundation of the Church, and as long as 
the foundation endures,the building will stand; but as 
soon as the foundation crumbles, the house will col¬ 
lapse. 

But how is Peter the foundation ? He is'Bo because 
he is the possessor of the supreme power in the 
Church, not, indeed, as an independent ruler, but as 
the vicegerent of Jesus Christ, the invisible King of 
God’s kingdom. Hence we read further: ‘‘And I 
will give to thee the keys of heaven, And whatsoever 
thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound in 
heaven; and v/hatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it 
shall be loosed in heaven. ’ ’ 

Now I will ask: What stronger proof can you 
require that Peter has been constituted by Christ the 
supreme guide and teacher of the Church; and that 
this office is to continue till the end of time? And 
who has inherited this office from Peter, if not the 
bishop of Rome? 

Your Protestant apologists make every effort to do 
away with this only possible explanation of the fore¬ 
going text. According to them Christ is supposed to 
have destined, not Peter, but the faith of Peter as the 
Rock, just as if Christ could have held a conversation 
with the faith of Peter! But what do they, among 
them Hase, substitute? A11 exegesis, emphatic, but 


256 THE VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 

so obscure, that, notwithstanding various consulta¬ 
tions with others, I have not as yet been able to 
gather from it any sort of reasonable meaning. These 
are its concluding words: 

“In this sense the promise of the Lord to Peter has 
been fulfilled. The Church founded by Peter and 
associated with his name has held the sovereignty for 
over a thousand years; the powers of Hades have 
never prevailed against it, and if the spirit of Peter 
has often hovered over her merely like a fantastic 
shadow, nevertheless his peculiar characteristics and 
behavior can be recognized in her; she too, has drawn 
the sword and used it, and more than once denied the 
Lord and Christian freedom, without the tears of Peter, 
however. ’ ’ 

But have not the gates of hell prevailed against the 
Church if she has “more than once denied the Tord 
and Christian freedom,” and, too, “without the tears 
of Peter’ ’ ? 

9. But I will conclude; before doing so, however, 
I must refer to those words in which the Lord solemnly 
committed the care of His flock to His immediate suc¬ 
cessor and vicegerent. It was after the Resurrection 
when He appeared to His disciples at the Sea of 
Tiberias and ate with them: “When therefore they had 
dined with Jesus, Jesus sayeth to Peter; Simon/son 
of Jona, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to 
him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He 
said to him: Feed my lambs. 

“He said to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest 
thou me? He said to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest 
that I love thee. He said to him. Feed my lambs . 

“He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, 


PETER THE FOUNDATION. 


257 


lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had 
said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he 
said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou 
knowest that I love thee. And he said to him: Feed 
my sheep.” 1 

So after the Ascension of Jesus, Peter in his 
Master’s place assumed the visible government of the 
apostolic college and the supreme guidance of the 
infant Church. He took his seat first at Antioch, 
later at Rome. The Roman Bishops succeeded him, 
not alone in the government of the Roman diocese, 
but in the supreme guidance of the whole Church. 
From the beginning, and actually through all the 
succeeding centuries, we find their position recognized 
as legitimate, grounded on their succession to St. 
Peter. There have been about two hundred and sixty 
bishops of Rome, who as visible vicegerents of the in¬ 
visible real King of this kingdom, the Church of Jesus 
Christ, have followed each other even to the glorious 
Pontiff now reigning: Leo XIII. 

So have the prophecies of pre-Christian times been 
fulfilled, especially the prophecy: 

“But in the days of those kingdoms the God of 
heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be 
destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up 
to another people: and it shall break in pieces, and 
shall consume all these kingdoms: and itself shall 
stand forever.” 2 

“And in the last days the mountain of the house 
of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of moun¬ 
tains, and it shall be exalted above the hills: and all 

1 St. John, XXI, 15, 17. 

2 Dan. II, 44. 

17 


258 THE VICEGERENT OF CHRIST. 

nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall 
go and say: Come and let us go up to the mountain 
of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, 
and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in 
his paths: for the law shall come forth from Sion, and 
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. ” 1 


1 Isaias, II, 2 and 3 . 



7. The Doctrine of Justification. 

(Edgar’s Fetter.) 

Reverend Father, my resolution is taken. I am 
going to be a member not only of the invisible king¬ 
dom of Jesus Christ, but also of His visible kingdom — 
the One, Hofy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded 
by Him; I wish to become a Catholic. Your argu¬ 
ment in favor of the truth that Christ commissioned 
the apostles with St. Peter at the head, and their suc¬ 
cessors in later times, to teach all nations, has con¬ 
vinced me; and it follows from this truth that I have 
the sacred duty of hearing, professing, and obeying 
the teaching of these deputies of Christ. 

Henceforth, my position towards you is essentially 
changed. I am no longer your opponent, eager to 
dispute, but a pupil who sees in you one authorized 
to hold the spiritual office of teacher. I will now pro¬ 
pose my difficulties not through doubt of the truth of 
the Catholic doctrine, but that I may receive informa¬ 
tion from you; for “I believe all that God has revealed, 
and all that the Holy Catholic Church proposes for our 
belief.” Especially, I believe in the infallible teach¬ 
ing authority of the General Councils in matters of 
faith and morals; and, since the General Council of 
the Vatican, and the whole Episcopate scattered over 
the earth, has accepted and put forth the doctrine, 
that when the supreme pastor of the Church, the Vicar 
of Jesus Christ, even without the concurrence of the 
other bishops decides finally a question of faith, he 

(259) 


260 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 

will, by the wisdom and omnipotence of God, be 
guarded from error, I believe with all my heart in 
the infallible teaching office of the Roman Bishops. 

So I have crossed the Rubicon! Still there are 
some points which I would like to have explained, 
and above all the doctrine of justification ; because, 
as you know, it was precisely on account of this doc¬ 
trine that Ruther believed himself obliged to separate 
from the old Church. I beg you, therefore, to put 
before me simply the Catholic doctrine of justification. 
It is not necessary to prove it to me in detail from 
Holy Scriptures and Tradition, as in the case of the 
Primacy, because as soon as I see clearly what the 
Catholic doctrine is, I shall be convinced that this 
ver}^ doctrine is the teaching of the Sacred Scriptures 
and of all Christian centuries. 

(Father H. ’s Answer.) 

First, my heartfelt congratulations on a resolution 
the blessed extent of which you will realize and treas¬ 
ure more and more as time goes on; but particularly 
will this be the case on your death-bed, and still more 
when the next world shall open its mysteries to you. 
In the meantime, continue to pray humbly and fer¬ 
vently, and in prayer tell God that you are ready for 
any sacrifice which perseverance in this resolution 
may demand : for sacrifices of many kinds will follow 
in its train. 

Justification — to enter into your question without 
further preamble — is the change from the condition 
of sin to the state of righteousness. Sin consists in 
the turning away of the will from God ; and this turn¬ 
ing away of the will, when it has reached the utmost 


DEFINED BY COUNCIE OF TRENT. 261 

degree, results in the perversion of the intellect, or 
unbelief, so that the whole inner man — his under¬ 
standing and his will — is alienated from God. Jus¬ 
tification must take the opposite course ; it begins with 
the recognition of. the sovereignty of God and belief 
in his revelation ; it advances in hope to the forgive¬ 
ness of sin and to final happiness ; and it is perfected 
in love, the most perfect union with God. 

But I will let the Council of Trent speak for me. 
In the sixth sitting, January 13 , 1547 , it promulgated 
the following : 

“Whereas there is at this time, not without the 
shipwreck of many souls, and grievous detriment to 
the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine 
disseminated, touching justification; the sacred and 
holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully 
assembled in the Holy Ghost, — the most reverend 
lords, Giammaria del Monte, Bishop of Palaestrina, 
and Marcellus of the title of the Holy Cross in Jerusa¬ 
lem, priests, cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, 
and legates apostolic a latere, presiding therein, in the 
name of our most Holy Father and Ford in Christ, 
Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope, —pur¬ 
poses, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, 
the tranquillizing of the Church, and the salvation of 
souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true 
a*nd sound doctrine touching the said Justification ; 
which (doctrine) the Sun of Justice Christ Jesus, the 
author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the 
apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, 
the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always 
retained ; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth 
presume to believe, preach, or teach otherwise than 
as by this present decree is defined and declared. . . . 


262 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 

“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, 
the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived 
from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus 
Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, 
without any merits on their part, they are called; 
that so they, who by their sins were alienated from 
God, may be disposed through his quickening and 
assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own 
justification, by freely assenting to, and co-operating 
with, that said grace: in such sort that, while God 
touches the heart of man by the illumination of the 
Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without 
doing anything while he receives that inspiration, 
forasmuch as he is able, by his own free will, without 
the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in his 
sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writ¬ 
ings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,” we 
are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer : 
“Convert us, O L,ord, to thee, and we shall be con¬ 
verted,” we confess that we are prevented by the 
grace of God. 

“Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said 
justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, 
conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved 
towards God, believing those things to be true which 
God has revealed and promised, — and this especially, 
that God justifies the impious by his grace, through 
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, 
understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by 
turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice 
whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the 
mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confident that 
God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and 


TRIDENTINE DEFINITION. 263 

they begin to love him as the fountain of all justice; 
and are therefore moved against sins by a certain 
hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which 
must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they 
purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and 
to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this 
disposition, it is written: “He that cometh to God, 
must believe that he is, and is a re warder to them 
that seek him”; and, “Be of good faith, son, thy sins 
are forgiven thee”; and, “The fear of the Lord driveth 
out sin”; and, “Do penance, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis¬ 
sion of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost”; and, “Going, therefore, teach ye all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; and, finally, 
“Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.” 

“This disposition, or preparation, is followed by 
Justification itself, which is not remission of sins 
merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the 
inward man, through the voluntary reception of the 
grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes 
just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an 
heir according to hope of life everlasting. Of this 
Justification the causes are these : the final cause in¬ 
deed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life 
everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful 
God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing 
and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is 
the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious 
cause is His most beloved only-begotten Son, our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the 
exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, merited 



264 the doctrine of justification. 

Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the 
wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto 
God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacra¬ 
ment of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, 
without which (faith) no man was ever justified; 
lastly, the formal cause is the justice of God, not 
that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby 
He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being 
endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our 
mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly 
called, and are just, receiving justice within us, each 
one according to his own measure, which the Holy 
Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and accord¬ 
ing to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. 
For, although no one can be just but him to whom 
the merits of the Passion of our Ford Jesus Christ are 
communicated, yet is this done in the said Justification 
of the impious, when by the merit of that same Holy 
Passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the 
Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, 
and is inherent therein: whence man, through Jesus 
Christ in whom he is engrafted, receives, in the said 
Justification, together with the remission of sins, all 
these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. 
For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, 
neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes 
him a living member of His body. For which reason 
it is most truly said, that faith without works is dead 
and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circum¬ 
cision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith 
which worketh by charity. This faith catechumens 
beg of the Church — agreeably to a tradition of the 
Apostles — previously to the sacrament of baptism, 


TRIDENTINE DEFINITION. 


265 


when they beg for the faith which bestows life ever¬ 
lasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot 
bestow; whence also do they immediately hear that 
word of Christ: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the 
commandments.” .... 

“And whereas the Apostle saith that man is jus¬ 
tified by faith and freely, those words are to be under¬ 
stood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the 
Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that 
we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because 
faith is the beginning of human salvation, the founda¬ 
tion, and the root of all Justification ; without which 
it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the 
fellowship of His sons; but we are therefore said to be 
justified freely, because that none of those things 
which precede Justification — whether faith or works 
— merit the grace itself of Justification. For, if it be 
a grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same 
Apostle says, ‘grace is no more grace’.” 1 

The foregoing is cited from the exposition promul¬ 
gated by the Council of Trent. I11 this doctrine the 
Council passes judgment categorically on the errors 
especially prevalent in the 16th century. Here follow 
in order some of the most weighty propositions con¬ 
demned : 

Canon I. 

“If any man saith that man may be justified before 
God by his own works, whether done through the 
teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without 
the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be 
anathema. 

1 Cone. Trid. sess. 6, De justif. cap. I—VIII. 


266 THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 

Canon II. 

“If any one saith that the grace of God, through 
Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be 
able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal 
life, as if by free will without grace he were able to 
do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; 
let him be anathema. 

Canon III. 

“If any one saith that without the prevenient in¬ 
spiration of the Holy Ghost, and without His help, 
man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he 
ought, so that the grace of Justification may be 
bestowed upon him; let him be anathema. 

Canon IV. 

“If any one saith that man’s free will, moved and 
excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and 
calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and pre¬ 
paring itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; 
that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would ; but that, 
as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and 
is merely passive ; let him be anathema. 

Canon V. 

“If any one .saith that, since Adam’s sin, the free 
will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a 
thing with only a name, yea, a name without a reality, 
a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by 
Satan ; let him be anathema. 

Canon VI. 

“If any one saith that it is not in man’s power to 
make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil 
God worketh as well as those that are good, not per- 
missively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such 
wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own 


• TRIDENTINE DEFINITION. 267 

proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be 
anathema. ’ ’ 1 

These are the ground lines of the Catholic doctrine 
of Justification, as defined by the Church in opposition 
to the innovators of the sixteenth century. You will 
admit that this doctrine is absolutely reasonable, and 
throughout conformable to Scripture and to the Chris¬ 
tian religion, and that it does not detract from the 
faith, grace, and the merits of Jesus Christ in the in¬ 
terest of good works ; that it rather assigns to each of 
these factors its proper place. And as these principles 
were firmly held before, as well as after, the appearance 
of Luther and Calvin, these men had no reason for 
destroying the unity of the Church on account of them. 

Granted, however, that these principles had become 
obscure before Luthei’s time, and that we Catholics 
only reached the truth again through the Council of 
Trent, yet now at least (after the Catholics again 
recognized the truth abandoned for a time), the fol¬ 
lowers of the new faith should no longer continue in 
their separation, but return to the old union. But, 
beyond a doubt, they act unjustly when, after the 
decree of the Council of Trent, they accuse the Catho¬ 
lic Church of preferring good works to the faith, 
grace, and merits of Jesus Christ. 

Would to God that all Protestants could see this; 
and that they would try to prove categorically the 
errors of which the Catholic Church is accused! They 
would find that the teachings of the Church are very 
different from those ascribed to her by Protestant 
preachers and Protestant writers; they would be con¬ 
vinced that no reason for religious separation remains, 
and would return to the' Church forsaken by their 
fathers. 

1 Cone. Trid. sess. 6, De justif. can. I — VI. 


8. Grace and Good Works. 


(Father H. ’s Fetter.) 

Dear Friend, I have a little addition to make to 
my last letter, to show what we Catholics think about 
good works. 

First, let me remark, that we do not regard as a 
good work the exterior action alone; an alms given out 
of vanity, a sacrament received with unworthy dis¬ 
positions is, according to Catholic principles, not a 
good work, but a sin : it deserves punishment, not 
praise. 

A good work is rather an action which is done 
from a truly virtuous motive, — for example, from the 
love of God, or our neighbor. It does not depend so 
much on the exterior action, as on the intention which 
directs it. The poor and sick who desire to perform 
works out of love of their neighbor, but are prevented 
by exterior circumstances, will have more merit before 
God than the rich who spend thousands in alms with 
a less worthy intention. And Jesus, speaking of the 
poor widow in the gospel, said that with her two 
mites she put more into the alms-box than all the 
rich who gave out of their abundance. 

But, how is it possible for us poor sinners to merit 
before God under any circumstances? I will tell you; 
we can do it by the power of Christ’s grace; for Christ 
has poured out for us His sanctifying grace as the 
supernatural principle of life, and He works constantly 
in us by actual grace. Christ Himself explains this 
(268) 


CHRIST THE SOURCE. 269 

relation to us by the beautiful parable of the vine, in 
which He says: 

‘‘I am the vine: and my Father is the husband¬ 
man. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he 
will take away; and every one that beareth fruit he 
will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 

“Now you are clean by reason of the word I have 
spoken to you. Abide in me: and I in you. As the 
branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the 
vine: so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 

“I am the vine, you are the branches: he that 
abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much 
fruit: for without me you can do nothing.” 1 

Am I not right then in believing that a branch of 
the vine of Christ can bring forth good fruit, that is, 
good works? And it seems to me that the merits of 
Christ are not diminished when we assert that we also 
as branches of the vine of Christ, are able to perform 
good works. 

Moreover, that such works receive recognition and 
reward in Heaven has been taught us by Christ Him¬ 
self in His description of the last Judgment: 

“Then shall the King say to them that shall be 
on his right hand: Come ye blessed of my Father, 
possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you 
gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to 
drink. ” 

And the just will ask in amazement when they did 
these services to the supreme Judge of the world ? 

“And the King answering, shall say to them: 
“Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of 
the least of my brethren, you did it to me.” 

r St. John XV, 1, 5. 


270 


Grac£ and good works. 


Condemnation will then be pronounced against the 
sinners. 

“And these shall go into everlasting punishment: 
but the just into life everlasting. ’ ’ 1 

. Supported by this parable of the vine, and by 
analogous passages in the Scriptures, we Catholics 
confidently believe that good works are possible and 
that by means of them man gains Heaven. Certainly 
it is a grace of Jesus Christ that we are branches of 
Him, the true vine, and that, in consequence of this 
incorporation, we can truly perform good works. Oh 
the other hand it is simply foolish to maintain that 
good works diminish the grace or the merits of Christ. 


• 1 St. Matthew, XXV, 31 ff. Cf. preceding pp. 107, 108. 



9. Explanation of the Tridentine Confession. 

(Father H.’s Fetter.) 

Dear Friend, you questioned me about various 
points in the profession of faith formulated by the 
Council of Trent, evidently because you wish to know 
exactly what you must believe before you enter the 
Catholic Church. I could direct you to send for our 
Catechism to any Catholic book store; but perhaps it 
would be better for me to explain briefly to you some 
of these points. I choose, therefore, the following: 

I. The authority of the Fathers of the Church. 

In the profession of faith it is said of the Holy 
Scriptures: “I will never take and interpret them 
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of 
the holy Fathers.” 

These words sometimes cause a Protestant to 
hesitate in returning to the Church although he is 
willing to submit to her authority in everything else. 
“Am I then,” he asks himself, “to recognize besides 
the infallibility of the Church a second infallibility, 
that of the Fathers of the Church?” 

This is not our position. The unanimous agree¬ 
ment of the Fathers of the Church who represented 
ecclesiastical scholarship during the earlier centuries, 
shows that their doctrine can be no other than the 
truth continually living in the Church by virtue of 
the promises of Christ. Some Fathers of the Church 
held different opinions on many points now defined 
dogma, — for instance, the dogma of the Immaculate 
(270 


272 THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 

Conception. However, where there is no such devia¬ 
tion in the explanation of Holy Scripture, their agree¬ 
ment must be accepted as an undeniable proof of the 
truth. The infallibility of the Church, therefore, 
stands out luminously in this agreement of the Holy 
Fathers. 

If, notwithstanding this explanation, you still 
hesitate, it is your part to submit your judgment to 
the infallible decree of the Church, for she orders you 
to uphold in matters of exegesis the unanimous teach¬ 
ing of the Fathers of the Church. 

2. The Seven Sacraments. 

The Tridentine Confession continues: “I also pro¬ 
fess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments 
of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ Our Ford, 
and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although 
not all of them necessary for everyone. Namely, 
Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Ex¬ 
treme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; and 
that they confer grace; and that of these-, Confirmation 
and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without the sin of 
sacrilege. ■ ’ 

These sacraments taken as a whole can be proved 
from Holy Scripture as well as from Tradition, though 
the proof from tradition satisfies the Church; but it 
should be sufficient for the individual, be he learned 
or ignorant, that the belief in the divine institution 
of these seven sacraments is taught by the Church. 
As clear a proof of the institution of the sacrament of 
Penance for example, as for that of Baptism and the 
Holy Eucharist, is found in the Scriptures, particularly 
in those words which Jesus addressed to the assembled 
Apostles after His Resurrection: “Peace be to you. 


THE SACRAMENTS. 


273 


As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When 
he had said this, he breathed on them and he said to 
them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose sins you 
shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins 
you shall retain they are retained. ” 1 

These seven Sacraments, therefore, instituted by 
Christ, influence in a wonderfully beautiful manner 
the life of the Christian. The first five regard the in¬ 
dividual immediately; Baptism imparts to him the 
grace of supernatural life; Confirmation strengthens 
him for the struggles of manhood; the Holy Sacra¬ 
ment of the Altar is the nourishment of the earthly 
pilgrim and the pledge of his resurrection; Penance 
awakens him to new life when, forgetful of duty, he 
has forfeited the life of grace; and finally, Extreme 
Unction, gives him strength for his last struggle. 

As these five Sacraments guide the individual 
Christian through life, so it is by means of the other 
two that the continuation of Christianity as a social 
body is maintained. Holy Orders insures the con¬ 
tinuous spiritual development; Matrimony sanctifies 
the corporeal propagation of Christians. 

So that the life of the individual, as well as the life 
of Christian society, is penetrated and saturated by 
grace in virtue of the fulness of these seven sacra¬ 
ments. 

3. Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, and 
Sanctifying Grace. 

‘ ‘ I embrace and receive all and every one of the 
things which have been defined and declared by the 
holy Council of Trent, concerning original sin and 
justification.” 

1 St. John, XX, 21, 23. 

18 


274 THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 

I liave already communicated to you the greater 
part of what the Council of Trent teaches about justi¬ 
fication; I will now further offer you some thoughts 
about original sin. 

God imposed upon the first man a command, that 
man might exercise obedience to the Creator. Adam 
was ordained by God to be the progenitor, and, in a 
mystical manner, the representative of the whole 
human race; his obedience or disobedience was to be 
considered the obedience or disobedience of the whole 
race. Adam did not stand the test, so the whole race 
was involved in his fall, and has shared his .sin and 
punishment; by this fall sanctifying grace was lost, 
with the right to heaven. 

When I say that the whole human race was placed 
by God in just dependence on Adam, and was there¬ 
fore involved in his fall, it is evident that Christ, the 
Son of the living God, is not included, although, by 
His birth of Mary, He, too, belongs to the descendants 
of Adam. He appeared as the new Adam, as the new 
progenitor, from whom proceeds the death of sin, as 
its birth had proceeded from the first Adam. 

But while Eve took part in Adam’s fall (since it 
was she who led him into sin) so a second Eve shared 
in the work of the second Adam, —the ever pure Vir¬ 
gin, the “Mother of divine grace,’’ to whom the angel 
said: “Hail, full of grace, the Eord is with thee: 
blessed art thou amongst women. ’ ’ 1 

And as Eve listened to the serpent, so Mary 
listened to the words of the angel, and replied: 
“Behold the handmaid of the Eord. Be it done to me 
according to thy word. ’ ’ 2 

1 St. Duke, I, 28. 

2 St. Luke, I, 38. 


ORIGINAL, SIN, SANCTIFYING GRACE, ETC. 275 

By virtue of this consent of Mary, by the power of 
her fiat, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among 
us.” 1 

Was it fitting that this second Eve should have 
been a partaker in the sin of Adam? The Church 
supported by Holy Scripture and tradition, teaches 
that it was not; and the Council of Trent declares that 
it is not its intention to include in the decree where 
original sin is dealt with, the holy and Immaculate 
Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. 2 Accordingly, Pope 
Pius IX, on the 8th day of September, 1854, amid the 
joyous acclamations of the Catholic world, solemnly 
defined the Immaculate Conception of Mary; that is, 
he declared that Mary was not tainted with original 
sin at any moment of her life; therefore, she proceeded 
from the hand of her Creator as pure as Adam and 
Eve. 

Not so with the other children of Adam; they can 
be delivered from original sin only through baptism. 
For, as our descent from Adam burdens us with 
original sin, so the second birth, the regeneration 
through baptism, incorporates us with the second 
Adam, the Redeemer; and as we receive our human 
nature by our descent from Adam, and resemble our 
progenitor, so regeneration makes us “partakers of 
the Divine Nature,” 3 because it infuses into our souls 
supernatural or sanctifying grace as a new and truly 
supernatural principle of life. 

You must not imagine sanctifying grace to be 
merely a favor, as one may be said to enjoy the favor 
of a king. Sanctifying grace is rather a real, physical 

1 St. John, I, 4. 

2 Session V. 

3 Peter, II, 1, 14. 


276 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


something (ein wirkliches , physisches Etwas ), almost 
the soul of the soul, —with this difference, however, 
that it cannot exist independently of the soul, as the 
soul may exist independently of the body after death. 

This sanctifying grace, then, which we receive in 
Baptism, makes us like to God, temples of the Holy 
Ghost, and invests us with a right to Heaven, on con¬ 
dition that we die in its possession, not having lost it 
by a mortal sin. Without this nuptial garment of 
sanctifying grace, no man can enter Heaven; it is 
transformed in the other world into the light of glory, 
by virtue of which we contemplate God; it is capable 
of increase during our earthly existence and is in¬ 
creased by each good work, particularly by each 
worthy reception of the Sacraments. The light of 
glory, and hence the happiness of Heaven, remains 
for all eternity in the degree attained at the moment 
of death. The supernatural virtues if they are not 
already present in the soul, are infused at the same 
time with sanctifying grace; especially faith, without 
which, according to St. Paul, “it is impossible to 
please God. ’ ’ 1 

4. No Salvation outside of the Church . 

From what has preceded, you will perceive why 
we Catholics assert that there is no redemption out¬ 
side the Church. This proposition has a double 
meaning. 

First it declares that every one is obliged to enter 
the Catholic Church, because Christ has founded the 
Church for the sole purpose that all mankind should 
be included within her pale. He who culpably and 
against his better knowledge neglects this duty, com- 

1 Hebrews, II, 6. 


REDEMPTION OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. 277 

mits a grievous sin, and would not attain happiness 
should he die in this sin; hence the Athanasian creed, 
undoubtedly one of the most ancient of Christianity, 
begins with the words: “It will he first required of 
him who wishes to work out his salvation that he 
possess the Catholic faith; and he who does not per¬ 
fectly preserve the same in its integrity, will, without 
doubt, be lost forever. ” But for a man to possess this 
faith and not to be willing to acknowledge it before the 
world, would surely show a spirit of hypocrisy and a 
most pitiable human respect. How long such an out¬ 
ward profession may be deferred it is the affair of the 
Church to decide. 

In a second sense also it can be truly said that 
there is no redemption outside the Church; because, 
manifestly, only the members of the Church possess, as it 
were , the ticket of admission to heaven. You will be 
astonished and rebellious at this seeming intolerance, 
but I beg you to give me first a full hearing. We will 
proceed step by step, and see what becomes of each in¬ 
dividual class of men after death. 

First, what becomes of Protestant'children who die 
after Baptism? They go straight to Heaven, because 
they die in sanctifying grace. But, they do not belong 
to the Catholic Church, and “outside of the Church 
there is no salvation!” Slowly, my friend,—in the 
absolute, full sense, they do not, perhaps, belong to the 
Catholic Church; but in the essential they belong to 
it, because there is but one baptism, and this baptism> 
(whether conferred by a Catholic or Protestant) makes 
them members of the one true Church founded by 
Christ, that is, the Catholic Church. 

But how is it with the adult Protestants ? If they 


278 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


have never committed a grievous sin their fate is that 
of Protestant children; that is, they will go to Heaven, 
because by their baptism they were incorporated into 
the Catholic Church, and have never separated them¬ 
selves from it through malice. 

But what if a Protestant commits a grievous sin ? 
Then, he must receive the sacrament of Penance in 
order to win back the lost grace. If he cannot do 
that, if, for instance, he is innocently ignorant of the 
obligation of confession, then, although the safest road 
to happiness is closed to him, yet even so, Heaven 
is not lost to him, because by an act of perfect contri¬ 
tion, that is, a contrition which proceeds from the 
highest motive, the pure love of God, the sin is 
blotted out, and sanctifying grace returns without his 
receiving the sacrament of Penance; on the other 
hand a less perfect contrition, that proceeding from 
hope of heaven or fear of hell, suffices when joined 
with the sacrament of Penance. 

But what about an adult who has never been 
baptized, and has sinned grievously? He is in 
the same condition as a Protestant who commits a 
mortal sin after baptism, that is, he must have perfect 
contrition; this contrition takes the place of baptism 
with him, as it supplies the sacrament of Penance to a 
Protestant; it is, therefore, baptism of desire. Further, 
he can receive the baptism of blood by a martyr’s 
death; and the baptism of desire or of blood admits 
him, in a broad sense to a membership of the Catholic 
Church, invests him with sanctifying grace, and opens 
Heaven for him. 

And how about adults who have received none 
of these kinds of baptism, but, on the other hand, 


UNBAPTIZFD INFANTS. 


279 


have never committed any great sin? If they do what 
is in their power, they must attain, at least in a remote 
way, to the faith of the Church and, consequently, to 
Heaven. For God omits nothing to show the 
right path, even though this should oblige Him to 
send an angel. The history of the missions tells of 
wonderful cases in which old men were led a great 
distance by an interior voice until they came at last to 
a missionary. 

Finally, what becomes of children who die without 
baptism? It is certain that they are not made par¬ 
takers of eternal salvation, that they do not enter 
Heaven, nor do they attain to the vision of God; it is * 
also certain that this loss is to them a kind of punish¬ 
ment, just as the loss of nobility is to the descendants of 
a criminal who has forfeited for himself and his descen¬ 
dants the right to a title. It is an open question, on 
the other hand, whether they suffer, besides this with¬ 
drawal of supernatural good, a further positive punish¬ 
ment, or whether a certain natural happiness is enjoyed 
by them in the next world. I, personally, am of the lat¬ 
ter view; I cannot understand how the mere inherited 
original sin — a sin, therefore, which includes no per¬ 
sonal guilt — can be punished otherwise than by the 
withdrawal of a good to which human nature had no 
just claim. This view is at present almost universal. 

According to this, an unbaptized child will have 
a better lot in the next world, than if it had not 
existed at all. You are, however, at liberty to follow 
either one of these views; the Catholic Church does 
not determine your choice. 

5. The Real Presence in the Most Holy Sacrament 
of the Altar , 


28 o 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


“I profess,” continues the creed, “that in the 
Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, 
really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together 
with the soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and that there is made a conversion of the whole sub¬ 
stance of the bread into \the Body, and of the whole 
substance of the wine into the Blood; which conver¬ 
sion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I 
also confess that, under either kind alone, Christ is 
received whole and entire and a true sacrament.” 

This doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ is 
founded on the words of Our Saviour: “Take ye and 
eat: This is my body. And taking the chalice he 
gave thanks: and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all 
of this. For this is my Blood of the New Testament 
which shall be shed for many unto the remission of 
sins. ’ ’ 1 

Both the Catholic Church and the Lutherans find 
the doctrine of the Real Presence clearly contained in 
these words ; the reformers are mistaken in believing 
the words to be meant in a figurative sense for a mere 
memorial of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. 
Christian antiquity testifies against them. To this 
day, not only Catholics and Lutherans, but also Rus¬ 
sians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Copts,' Armenians, Chal¬ 
deans, and indeed all the oriental sects, which have 
been partially separated from the Catholic Unity for a 
thousand years or so, believe in the Real Presence. 
If the doctrine rests on a misunderstanding of the 
Holy Scripture, then for this whole period they have 
all been in a revolting error, and have been giving a 

1 St. Matth. XXVI, 26, 29; St. Mark XIV, 22, 25; St. 
Luke XXII. 19, 20. 


THK RI$AR PRESENCE. 


281 


piece of bread and a drop of wine the honor which 
was due only to the Son of God. In this case what 
would become of the promise of Jesus Christ, that he 
would remain with his own until the end of the 
world ? 

But not only in the words of consecration accord¬ 
ing to Sts. Matthew, Mark and Iyiike, but also in an¬ 
other place in St. John, Christ teaches us in the 
clearest terms that He is present under the form of 
bread and wine: “I am the bread of life,” He said, 
“Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and are 
dead. This is the bread which cometh down from 
heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I 
am the living bread, which came down from heaven. 
If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever: and 
the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of 
the world. ’ ’ 

These words seemed strange to the Jews also. 
Had they understood that they were to be taken in a 
merely figurative sense, as the Calvinists take them, 
110 objections would have been made; but such an ex¬ 
planation of this statement was impossible. “They 
contended, therefore, among themselves, saying: How 
can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Then Jesus 
said to them: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except 
you eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his 
blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth 
my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting 
life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my 
flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed; 
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 
abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father 
hath sent me, and I live by, the Father: so he that 


282 


THK TRIDLNTINK CONFKSSION. 


eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is 
the bread which came down from heaven. Not as 
your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that 
eateth this bread shall live forever. * ’ 1 

Had the Jews been in the wrong when they put a 
literal construction upon the previous words of our 
Saviour and therefore found them incomprehensible, 
now was the time for Jesus to undeceive them; but far 
from doing this, His words just quoted are but a 
stronger affirmation of the literal meaning. 

And so the Jews understood them, declaring: 
“This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” Jesus 
knowing this, His duty plainly was to show them 
their error, if such an error existed. Even the dis¬ 
ciples were scandalized by His words. But what does 
Our Eord do? He turns to them and says: “Doth 
this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of 
man ascend into heaven up where he was before?” 
In other words He would say: “As literally and cor¬ 
porally as I shall ascend into heaven, so literally and 
corporally will I give myself to you as food. ’ ’ 2 

“After this many disciples went back: and walked 
no more with him. ’ ’ They had seen and heard that 
Jesus wished them to understand His words in their 
literal meaning, and, like the Calvinists and ration¬ 
alists of our day, they would not subject themselves to 
this meaning. 

Jesus allowed them to withdraw, but he said to the 
twelve: “Will you also go away? And Simon Peter 
answered him: Eord, to whom shall we go? Thou 
hast the words of eternal life. ’ ’ 3 

1 St. John, VI, 54,. 60. 

2 Cf. Luke XXIV, 51; Acts of the Apostles II, 9, 11, 

3 St.John, VI, 68, 69. 


THE BIASSED SACRAMENT. 


283 


From that time to the present, it has been the con¬ 
stant belief of the Church that in the Blessed Sacra¬ 
ment, under the forms of bread and wine, are concealed 
not ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but the Body 
and Blood of Jesus Christ; that, therefore, he who 
receives Holy Communion unworthily, really and 
truly sins against the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. 
Hence these words of the Apostle Paul: “Therefore, 
whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of 
the Ford unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and 
Blood of the Ford. But let a man prove himself: and 
so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the 
Body of the Ford. ’ ’ 1 

Now if the words of Christ are not to be under¬ 
stood literally, we might sin by an unworthy recep¬ 
tion, but not against the Body and Blood of Christ. 

If it be objected that the Holy Scriptures ought to 
exclude more decisively the doctrine of Calvin, we 
may answer that it would be a difficult matter to find 
clearer terms to express what our Ford wished to say. 

As I said above the words of Christ have always 
been understood even by the Futherans in the sense 
that one receives the real Body of the Ford in commu¬ 
nion. There is, however, a difference in apprehending 
the subject between the Catholics and Futherans. The 
Catholic Church has always understood the words of 
Christ, “This is my Body,” to mean that what Christ 
held in His hand was at that moment already His 
Body, and that it did not first become so some 
moments later, namely, when he distributed it to the 


1 X. Corinthians XI, 27, 29. 


284 the tridentine confession. 

Apostles. The miracle is as great in one sense as in 
the other, no matter at which moment the transforma¬ 
tion takes place. The Catholic Church, therefore, 
holds strictly to the enunciation of the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures, and has always taught that the transformation 
is completed at the moment the priest, in the place of 
Christ, says, “This is my Body,” and not when he 
distributes the host among the faithful. ‘ 

Luther subverted this doctrine of all Christian cen¬ 
turies. He also set aside the other doctrine, equally 
old, according to which there is in the Christian 
Church a special priesthood, different from that uni¬ 
versal priesthood which appertains to every Christian. 
The consequence was that he allowed all Christians to 
exercise the priestly office, namely, by partaking of 
this bread. He was thus obliged to acknowledge the 
Real Presence only from the moment of this partak¬ 
ing. By this doctrine he abolished all those time- 
honored devotions by which the Church and Christian 
peoples honor the Host after it is consecrated, but 
before it has been consumed; namely, solemn exposi¬ 
tion, processions, and visits made by pious individuals 
of the Church in order to pray and unburden their 
hearts before the Saviour in His Tabernacle near the 
shrine of eternal light; because according to the 
Lutheran doctrine Christ is not present in the Taber¬ 
nacle, but only becomes present when the individual 
receives Him. 

It is clear that the most Blessed Sacrament requires 
a whole series of miracles. But what difficulty can 
sincere Christians find in such miracles when they 
believe in the Incarnation of God; or how can they 
refuse their adoration to the God concealed under the 


the; blessed sacrament. 285 

form of bread when they find no difficulty in adoring 
Him in the crib at Bethlehem ? 

Christ our Lord and God is, therefore, present in 
the Tabernacle and so this most Holy Sacrament 
forms the heart of the Church. Take it away and you 
deprive Christianity of its heart; you stop the pulse 
which .strengthens the martyrs in their heroic courage; 
which preserves virgins in their purity: from which 
streams the self-sacrifice of the Sisters of Charity; 
which inspired the artist as he designed the Cathedrals 
of the Middle Ages, because these Cathedrals are in 
truth only vast Tabernacles for the most Holy Sacra¬ 
ment of the altar,—they are really the houses of God. 
If this Sacrament were a lie, then the magnificent art 
of olden times would be a lie, the Christianity of our 
fathers, in spite of the promise of Christ, would be a 
lie, since they were a mere prey to idol worship, as by 
far the greater number of Christians would be even 
now; in fine, the wonderfully beautiful hymns of olden 
times would be lies, particularly that hymn of St. 
Thomas Aquinas which the Church chants in the 
office for Corpus Chrisit: 

Pange, lingua, gloriosi, 

Corporis mysterium, 

Sanguinisque pretiosi, 

Quem in mundi pretium 
Fructus ventris generosi 
Rex effudit gentium. 


spring. 


Sing, my tongue, the Sav¬ 
iour’s glory, 

Of His flesh the mystery 
sing; 

Of the blood, all price ex¬ 
ceeding, 

Shed by our immortal King, 

Destined, for the world’s re¬ 
demption, 

From a noble womb to 


286 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


Nobis datus, nobis natus 
Ex intacta Virgine, 

Et in mnudo conversatus, 
Sparso verbi semine, 

Sui moras incolatus 
Miro clausit ordine. 


In supremae nocte coenae, 
Recumbens cum fratribus 
Observata lege plene 
Cibis in legalibus, 

Cibum turbae duodenae 
Se dat sui manibus. 


Verum caro panem verum 
Verbo carnem efficit, 

Fitque sanguis Christi 

merum; 

Et si sensus deficit, 

Ad firmandum cor sincerum 
Sola tides sutficit. 


Tantum ergo sacramentum 
Veneremur cernui, 

Et antiquum documentum 
Novo cedat ritui; 

Praestet tides supplementum 
Sensuum defectui. 


Of a pure and spotless virgin, 
Born for us on earth below, 
He, as man with man con¬ 
versing, 

Stay’d the seeds of truth to 
sow, 

Then He closed in solemn 
order 

Wondrously His life of woe. 

On the night of that last 
supper 

Seated with His chosen band, 
He the paschal victim eating, 
First fulfils the law’s com¬ 
mand : 

Then, as food to all His 
brethren, 

Gives himself with His own 
hand. 

Word made flesh, the bread 
of nature 

By His word the flesh he turns; 
Wine into His blood He 
changes: 

What through sense no 
change discerns, 
Only be the heart in earnest, 
Faith her lesson quickly 
learns. 

Down in adoration falling, 

Do ! the sacred Host we hail; 
Do! o’er ancient forms de¬ 
parting, 

Newer rites of grace prevail; 
Faith, for all defects supply¬ 
ing, 

Where the feeble senses fail. 


COMMUNION UNDE}R ONE} FORM. 


287 


Geuitori Genitoque 
Laus et jubilatio, 

Salus, honor, virtus quoque 
Sit et benedictio: 
Procedenti ab utroque 
Compar sit laudatio. 


To the everlasting Father, 
And the Son, who reigns on 
high, 

With the Holy Ghost pro¬ 
ceeding 

Forth from each eternally, 

Be salvation, honor, blessing, 
Might, and endless majesty. 
Amen. 


Amen. 


6. Communion under one form. 

“I also confess that under either kind alone Christ 
is received whole and entire and a true sacrament. ’ ’ 

Communion under one form is a special point on 
which many Protestants are scandalized. Here again 
they wish to hold strictly to the expression of the 
Bible, according to which Christ in giving the chalice 
said: “Drink ye all of this.” But why do they not 
wash each other’s feet? According to the Scripture 
Christ said: “If then, I, being your Dord and Master, 
have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one 
another’s feet.” 1 

We Catholics are as anxious as they to grasp the 
Scriptures in their true sense and to follow them; but 
we believe ourselves more secure, if, in doubtful 
cases, we let the Church decide as to the true meaning 
of the Bible. The passage just quoted is doubtful, if 
one looks at the mere outward expression. The “all” 
who are supposed to drink from the cup, are, of course 
the Apostles present in the room. Are the followers 
also of the Apostles till the last day to be understood 
as included? Or even the laity of all times? The 
passage itself gives us no decision on this point. But 
the Church teaches us that throughout these words of 
Christ, no command is laid on all Christians to receive 


1 St. John, XIII, 14. 


288 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


the Lord’s supper under two kinds', that of bread and 
that of wine. Moreover the nature of this sacrament 
does not require the reception under two kinds, since 
under each form Christ is present whole and entire: 
under that of bread (which of course is an emblem of 
the body) His holy Blood is also received at the same 
time, and vice versa; because, since the Resurrection, 
the flesh and blood of Christ are no longer separated, 
as at the time of His death, and we receive, not the 
dead, but the living Saviour as He reigns in Heaven. 

Hence it is simply a matter of convenience, 
whether the Church commands the reception under 
both kinds or only one. The custom of the Church 
in this point has varied with time and circumstances. 
In the first century the communicant was accustomed to 
receive under both kinds at Mass, at other times only 
under the form of bread; at present, I believe, the 
Catholic Church allows the reception under both forms 
in the Oriental ritual, but in the Latin ritual the recep¬ 
tion only under the form of bread; although the Utra- 
quists in Bohemia and Moravia were also allowed both 
forms for a time. The reasons on the part of the 
Church for this indulgence were numerous; I will 
quote only one, — that given when this custom of re¬ 
ceiving under one form was established by the Council 
of Constance, in 1414. She wished to make an effective 
protest against the heresy which asserted that the 
Body only is received under the form of bread, the 
Blood only under that of wine, just as if the commu¬ 
nicant received Christ divided and dead, not living. 

7. The holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

“I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is 
offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacri¬ 
fice for the living and for the dead. ’ ’ 


THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 289 

This brings us to a point which of all the doctrines 
of the Catholic Church is least understood by Protes¬ 
tants. Every trace of a true sacrifice in Christianity 
has been lost by them. Allow me to quote simply 
what the Catholic Catechism teaches regarding the 
Mass. 

§ 2. On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

“ 116. What is a Sacrifice ? 

“Sacrifice in general is a visible offering which 
one voluntarily makes to God, in order to honor and 
adore him as the Supreme Ruler. 

“117. Have sacrifices been made in all times? 

“Sacrifices have been offered since the beginning 
of the world, and in the Old Raw God Himself, 
through Moses, appointed the sacrifices that were to 
be offered to him. 

“118. Why were the sacrifices of the Old Law 
abolished ? 

‘ ‘ Because they were only figures of the unbloody 
sacrifice of the New Law; for the Old Law had but 
‘ the shadows of the good things to come. ’ 1 

“ 119. What is the sacrifice of the New Law? 

“The Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ, who by 
His death on the cross sacrificed Himself to His eternal 
Father for us. (Hebr. IX, 14.) 

“120. Were all the sacrifices to end with the death 
of Jesus? 

“No; the Prophet Malachias expressly predicted 
that in the New Taw of grace, instead of the Jewish 
sacrifice, a pure, unspotted oblation would be con¬ 
tinually offered to the Most High in all places. ‘ I 
have no pleasure in you (Jews) saith the Lord of 

1 Hebrew X, 1; IX, 9. 

19 


290 ' THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 

Hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand, for 
from the rising of the sun to the going down, my 
name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place 
there is sacrifice and there is offered to my name a 
clean oblation.’ (Mai. I, io, n.) 

“121. What is the clean oblation which God 
wishes to be offered in all places to Him? 

“The Sacrifice of the Mass. 

“122. What is the Mass ? 

“The Mass is the perpetual sacrifice of the New 
Taw in which Christ our Tord offers Himself up to His 
Heavenly Father by the hand of the priest in an un¬ 
bloody manner under the forms of bread and wine, as 
He once offered himself in a bloody manner on the 
cross. 

“123. Why does Christ perpetually sacrifice Him¬ 
self in the Mass ? 

“Christ offers Himself in the Mass in order to 
renew continually the sacrifice which He made on the 
Cross, and to make us partakers of that sacrifice. 

“124. Is not, therefore, the sacrifice of the Mass, 
different from that on the Cross ? 

“No; the sacrifice of the Mass is the very same 
sacrifice as the sacrifice on the Cross, only the manner 
of offering is different in each. 

“125. Why is the sacrifice of the Mass the same 
as the sacrifice on the Cross ? 

“Because in both the same One is offered, and the 
same One offers, Jesus Christ Our Ford. The priest 
is only the servant and visible representative of 
Christ; for that reason he does not speak in his own 
name but in the name of Christ: ‘ This is my body . . . 
this is my blood. ’ 


ThK HOI/V SACRIFICE OF THF MASS. 291 

“126. Iii how far is the manner of offering dif¬ 
ferent in both ? 

“In so far as Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the 
Mass suffers and dies no more as on the Cross. 

“127. If Christ dies no more how, then, can the 
sacrifice which he completed on the Cross be renewed 
in the Mass ? 

9 

“It is renewed, because in the Holy Mass Christ 
really and truly offers Himself up under the symbols of 
the bloody death which He suffered on the Cross, 
namely, under the separated forms of bread and wine. 

(To explain more clearly: the holy Mass is the 
commemoration, representation, renewal, and con¬ 
tinuation of the sacrifice of the Cross; the commemora¬ 
tion, because the Mass is celebrated to remind us of 
the sacrifice on the Cross, and expressly commemorates 
it; the representation, because the offering under the 
separated forms of bread and wine represents the sepa¬ 
ration of the soul and body on the Cross; the renewal, 
by the abasement to which the Saviour, gloriously 
throned in Heaven, condescends by becoming present 
under the lowly forms of bread and wine, as He once 
abased himself even to the death 011 the Cross; finally, 
the continuation of the sacrifice of the Cross, in that it 
procures for us more and more of the fruits of that 
sacrifice.) 

“128. Who instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the 
Mass? 

“Jesus Christ Himself instituted it at the Tast 
Supper when He gave His Apostles the command and 
the full power to do what He then did. 

“129. Were all the principal parts of the Mass 
represented at the Tast Supper ? 


THE TRIDENTINE CONEESSION. 

“Yes; (i)The sacrifice of the bread and wine; 
because He took bread, lifted His eyes to His heavenly 
Father, gave thanks, and blessed it, and also the 
chalice with the wine, etc. 

(2) The consecration; for Christ changed the bread 
into His body, and the wine into His blood. 

(3) The communion, for He offered His disciples 
His flesh to partake of. 

Jesus Christ, therefore, first represented at the Fast 
Supper the unbloody sacrifice of the New Taw, and so 
fulfilled the prophecy: ‘ The Ford hath sworn, and he 
will not repent; thou art a priest forever according to 
the order of Melchisedec ’ (Psalm 109, 4); because 
Melchisedec offered bread and wine (I Gen. XIV, 18). 

“130. Have we also proofs that from Apostolic 
times the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has always been 
celebrated ? 

“Yes; this is proved (1) by the words of St. Paul: 

‘ We Christians have an altar whereof they (the Jews) 
have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle ’ 
(Heb. XIII, 10). But where there is an altar, there 
must also be a sacrifice. And (2) by the undeniable 
testimony of the Holy Fathers, by the decrees of the 
Councils, and the very ancient ritual of the Church 
in the Bast and West, as also by the altars and sacer¬ 
dotal garments of the most ancient times. 

“131. To what end is Mass celebrated? 

“In order to give to God by the worthiest of all 
sacrifices, His only begotten Son, (1) the highest honor 
and adoration; (2) due thanks for all His gifts and 
benefits; (3) in order to beg new graces; and (4) to 
satisfy for our sins and to avert their merited punish¬ 
ment. 


THE) HOIvY SACRIFICE) OF THE) MASS. 293 

So the Mass is the most worthy offering of praise, 
the thanksgiving most pleasing to God, the most effi¬ 
cacious prayer, and, if assisted at in a contrite and 
repentant spirit, the most. powerful sacrifice of expia¬ 
tion. Nothing is therefore holier, more adorable, 
richer in grace and heavenly blessings than the Mass. 
It has in and of itself an infinite value.” 1 

So far the Catechism. It appeals to the testimonies 
of the Fathers of the Church and the ancient liturgy 
to prove that from the beginning the Mass has been 
celebrated. Since Protestants can scarcely bring them¬ 
selves to believe that even at the time of the first 
Christians and the Apostles the Sacrifice of the Mass 
was offered, and, moreover, as you have probably heard 
from youth that the Mass was an invention of later 
times and belonged to the abuses of the Catholic 
Church, I will put before you a few of the witnesses 
of antiquity. 

Early in the first century, we find in the “Teach¬ 
ing of the twelve Apostles” (chap. 14): “If you 
assemble together on the day of the Ford so break the 
bread and give thanks, after you have confessed your 
sins, that your sacrifice ( Ovata ) be pure. . . . This is 
the sacrifice which the Ford prophesied: Everywhere 
and at all times will they offer to me a pure sacri¬ 
fice. ’ ’ 2 

St. Justin (100—167 A. d.) writes in his dialogue 
with the Jew Tryphon (n. 41): “Of that sacrifice 
which in all places is offered up to God by us, namely 
of the Eucharistic bread and the Eucharistic wine, 
God has already prophesied (through Malachias), 

1 Catholic Cathecism of the Diocese of Treves. 42d edi¬ 
tion, pp. 130—132. 

2 Cf. Malach, I, 11; and p. 194, question 120. 


294 the tridentine confession. 

adding that His name shall be honored by us, but by 
you (the Jews) dishonored.” 1 

St. Irenaeus (died 202) confirms this testimony 
saying: “Christ (at the Last Supper) declared the 
wine to be His Blood, and taught the new Sacrifice of 
the New Law, which the Church has received from 
the Apostles and offers to God throughout the 
world.” 2 

Some decades later we have the testimony of St. 
Cyprian (died 258). He denounced an abuse which, 
in some parts of Africa, had crept in, of using water 
alone in the Mass instead of wine and water mingled. 
He says: “If Jesus Christ our Lord and God is the 
Highpriest of Hod the Father, and He first offered 
Himself to the Father in sacrifice, and has com¬ 
manded the same to be done in memory of Him, only 
that priest truly represents Christ, who imitates what 
Christ did, and he only offers in the Church of God a 
true and full sacrifice, when he makes the offering as 
he sees that Christ himself offered it. ” 3 

St. Ephraem (after 370), the most famous of the 
Fathers of the Syrian Church, writes: “O incom¬ 
prehensible miracle! O unspeakable power! O mystery 
of the priesthood! Spiritual and holy, sublime and 
immeasurable office, that Christ left as a memorial to 
us, unworthy ones! With bended knee, with tears 
and sighs, I pray you to meditate upon this treasure 

1 Opera Justini indubiata. Recensuit Jo. Car. Th. Eques 
de Otto in facilitate evang. Vindobonensi Professor P. O. 
Tom. I, 2 p. 139. Jenae 1877. 

2 St. Irenaeus adv. haer. 1. 4. c. 17. n. 5 (Migne gr. t. 7. 
p. 1023 (cf. ib. p. 328). 

3 St. Cyprian, epist. ad. Caecil. n. 14 (Migne lat. t. 4. 
p. 385 seqq.) 


TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 295 

of the priesthood; a treasure, I say, to him who proves 
himself worthy of it. ” 1 

“Fire fell on the sacrifice of Elias and consumed 
it; for us the fire of mercy comes upon the sacrifice of 
life. Fire once consumed the sacrifice; but thy fire, 
Eord, we have consumed with thy sacrifice.” 2 

St. Ambrose (died 397), bishop of Milan, ex¬ 
claims: “Would that, when we burn incense at the 
Altar, when we offer that sacrifice (sacrificium deferen- 
tibus), the angels standing on our side could present 
themselves visibly to us. For thou darest not doubt 
that angels are present when Christ is there, when 
Christ is sacrificed (immolatur). ” 3 

About the same time St. Chrysostom (died 407), 
the great bishop of the Church of Constantinople, 
writes: “When thou seest how the Eord is sacrificed 
and remains there, how the priest stands before the 
offering and prays, canst thou then believe that thou 
art among men and upon earth?” 4 

St. Augustine (died 430) from the African Church 
speaks of the “Sacrifice of the Mass which is now 
offered by Christians all over the globe, ... in fulfil¬ 
ment of the prophecy: Thou art a priest forever 
according to the order of Melchisedec. ’ ’ 5 

We can no longer doubt of whom this was foretold, 
when there is no no longer a priesthood and a sacrifice 
according to Aaron, and when through the Highpriest 

1 St. Ephraem, De sacerdotio. 

2 St. Ephraem, The Incomprehensibility of the Son, c. 4. 

3 St. Ambrosius, commentar. in Luc. 1. 1. n. 2 (Migne 
lat. t. 15 p. 1545). 

4 St. Chrysost., De sacerdotio 1. 3. n. 4 (Migne gr. t. 48. 
p. 642). 

5 St. August., De civ. Dei 1. 16. c. 22; 1. 18, c. 7 (Migne 
lat. t. 41. p. 500; p. 564). 


296 THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 

Christ, the sacrifice which Melchisedec prefigured is 
everywhere offered (Melchisedec, as you know, offered 
bread and wine). St. Augustine speaks also of “that 
food which the Priest and Mediator of the New Haw 
according to Melchisedec Himself prepares of His 
Body and Blood. For this sacrifice takes the place of 
those of the Old Testament, which were offered as 
types of the future sacrifice. ’ ’ 1 

I will cite from the ancient liturgies only one, 
which reaches back into Christian antiquity, the 
liturgy of St. James: “All mortal flesh is silent and 
stands with fear and trembling; all earthly things 
vanish from the memory; for the King of kings, the 
Ford of lords, Christ our God becomes present in 
order to be sacrificed and given to the faithful as 
food. ’ ’ 2 

If you desire other proofs you will find them in 
abundance in Gihr’s excellent work on the Sacrifice 
of the Mass. However, I think those quoted will 
suffice to convince you that early Christianity held the 
commemoration of the Fast Supper, that is, the Holy 
Sacrifice of the Mass, to be a true sacrifice. To Prot¬ 
estants the idea is very strange. The so-called refor¬ 
mers thought to purify Christianity of its human 
growths; but in reality they rejected things which 
Christ himself instituted. And if many things which 
they abolished were truly of human origin, as for in¬ 
stance, that wonderful ritual which grew out of the 
Mass and envelops it like a garment, these very 
human additions are not without justification. 

1 St. Augustin., De civ. Dei 1. 17. c. 20 (Migne 1. c. 
p. 556). 

2 Cf. Gihr, Das hi. Messopfer (Freiburg, Herder 1877), 
p. 91. 


THE LANGUAGE AND LITURGY. ?97 

The magnificent Church of the Virgin in Treves 
was “reformed” in the beginning of the century in 
the same way that the “reformers” have improved 
Church matters in general. This Church had a mar¬ 
vellously beautiful stained glass window dating from 
the Middle Ages. But the enlightened pastor, so to 
say, thought a parish Church should have light; so 
the old window was removed, and replaced by plain 
glass. An Englishman lost no "time in taking “the 
old window’ ’ to England ! 

8. The Latin language in the Mass, and the Mass- 
liturgy in general. 

The method of “reforming” above referred to 
reminds me of the “enlightened” polemics which ob¬ 
jected, among other things, to the use of the Eatin 
language in the service of God. Everything, it urges, 
should be as clear and intelligible as possible, as light 
and luminous as a crystal palace. 

I grant there is some justice in this view. The 
people should understand the Mass, and, as much as 
possible, the prayers of the Mass, so varied and 
sublime. A Church should also have light enough to 
enable one to read there without difficulty. 

But Catholics understand the Mass in spite of the 
Eatin, because it is explained step by step in the 
Catechism and in sermons. The prayer-books, more¬ 
over, contain translations of the Eatin prayers into 
the vernacular. Then, if, without diminishing the 
necessary light, a Church can be decorated with 
stained glass windows, why Should any one object? 
The house of God should not be like a common 
sitting-room or a bazaar. And if a language is chosen 
for the service of God which differs from the common 


298 THK TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 

speech, I cannot see anything reprehensible in this 
choice since the ritual and the prayers are explained 
and understood by the laity. Latin was sanctified on 
Golgotha—the inscription on the Cross was in Latin: 
Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judaeorum. (Jesus of Naza¬ 
reth, King of the Jews). 1 The Lathers of the Church, 
and the theologians of all centuries, have written in 
Latin. And why may we not use a dead language 
since at the time of Jesus Christ the same was done in 
the temple of Jerusalem, for the language then in use 
was not that of everyday life? 

Cardinal Wiseman, Archbishop of Westminster, 
says of the ceremonies and prayers of the Mass, that 
“no human genius can hope to attain to their beauty 
and sublimity. In these two qualities the Mass differs 
from all other services in a remarkable manner. It is 
not merely flights of eloquence and poetry, strikingly 
displayed in particular prayers, but it is sustained 
throughout in the higher sphere, to which its divine 
purpose naturally raises it. If we examine each 
prayer separately, it is perfect; perfect in construction, 
perfect in thought, and perfect in expression. If we 
consider the manner in which these prayers are 
brought together, we are struck with the brevity of 
each, with the sudden but beautiful transitions, and 
the almost stanza-like effect with which they succeed 
each other, forming a lyrical composition of surpassing 
beauty. If we take the entire service, as a whole, it 
is constructed with the most admirable symmetry, 
proportioned in its parts with perfect judgment, and 
so exquisitely arranged, as to excite and preserve an 
unbroken interest in the sacred action. No doubt, 

1 St. John, XIX, 19. 


BEAUTY OF THE EITURGY. 


299 


to give full force and value to this rite, its entire 
ceremonial is to be considered. The assistants with 
their magnificent vestments, the chant, the incense, 
the more varied ceremonies which belong to a Solemn 
Mass, are calculated to increase veneration and ad¬ 
miration. But still, the essential beauties remain, 
whether the holy rite be performed under the golden 
vault of St. Peter’s, with all the pomp and circum¬ 
stance befitting its celebration by the Sovereign Pon¬ 
tiff, or in a wretched wigwam, erected in haste by 
some poor savages for their missionary. ’ ’ 1 

A German savant writes: “No where in the visible 
government of the Church by the spirit of God, even 
in minor things, does the higher influence appear so 
palpably, as in the Catholic liturgy, which, although 
monumental, is nevertheless, in the present perfection, 
such an exclusive whole, in itself, so beautiful and 
perfect, in fact such a work of splendor, that it excites 
the admiration of every thoughtful person. Even the 
bitterest opponents of the Church concede this after 
a fashion; unbiased esthetic judges declare that, 
even from their standpoint, the Mass is one of the 
greatest artistic productions which has ever been 
given to the world. Thus the sacrificial act, so preg¬ 
nant with meaning is surrounded by a circle of magni¬ 
ficent ceremonies. It is therefore incumbent on us to 
strive more and more to obtain a deep insight into the 
sense and meaning of these ceremonies, and according 
to our power of comprehension to interpret them to 
the people. ’ ’ 2 

1 Wiseman, quoted from Dublin Review. 

2 Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hi. Sacra- 
menten, I, p. 592. 


300 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


9. Celibacy. 

The celibacy of the officiating priest, as well as the 
use of the Latin, separates the sacred ceremonies from 
everyday life. The priest should not be absorbed by 
the petty, often- pressing, cares of married life. He 
should be independent; himself without a family, he 
should be a father to the whole congregation. As a 
representative of the Most High and the great High 
Priest, and after the example of John, the virgin 
disciple, the priest also, refraining from marriage, 
should choose the more perfect life of celibacy. 
For St. Paul says: “He that giveth his virgin in 
marriage doth well; but he that giveth her not, doth 
better. But I say to the unmarried and to the 
widows, it is good for them if they so continue even 
as I.” — “But I would have you to be without 
solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous 
for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may 
please God. But he that is w T ith a wife, is solicitous 
for the things of the world, how he may please his 
wife, and he is divided. And the unmarried woman 
and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: 
that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. 
But she that is married thinketh on the things of 
the world, how she may please her husband.” 1 

Such, dear friend, are the words of the Holy 
Scripture and you cannot alter them. We Catholics 
can prove our doctrines from Holy Scripture as well 
as Protestants and perhaps better. 

For the rest, the Church forces no one to choose 
celibacy. On the contrary, she condemns such en- 

1 I Corinthians VII, 38; and 32, 34. 


CElvIBACY. 


30 i 


forced measures as moral tyranny. But, if any one 
desires to approach the altar as a priest of the New 
Taw, as a priest “according to the order of Melchise- 
dec,” as a representative of the great High Priest, 
Jesus Christ, and to administer the Holy of Holies, 
she places before him the condition — he cannot be 
“divided” between God and his wife. If the priest 
voluntarily vows celibacy, the Church requires that 
he should faithfully fulfil his vow, because after reach¬ 
ing the age of twenty years — and no earlier does she 
permit this vow to be taken — a man should be able 
to tell what he can vow in regard to this and what he 
can not. If anyone should urge the impossibility of 
observing celibacy, he would be stigmatizing Christian 
society. For how few there are who can marry before 
the age of twenty ? And if they can remain single till 
then, they can do so for the rest of their lives. 

Certainly the preservation of the angelic virtue 
requires a life of prayer and self-denial. But which 
class strives more steadfastly to persevere in this 
virtue, our Catholic priests, or the dignitaries, officers, 
merchants, etc., of our modern society? 

The following consideration should also be taken 
into account. If the priest imposes upon himself the 
life of renunciation required by the state of celibacy, 
then with the material means which, in a state of 
matrimony, would be needed for the education of his 
children, he can educate in a Christian way perhaps 
twice the number of poor orphans, or else perform 
works of charity. Ought a priest to be blamed if, 
reflecting on all this, he chooses to remain unmarried? 
Nor is this a mere theoretic possibility; we Catholics 
have every reason to be proud that our modern clergy 


■ 302 THE tridenTine CONFESSION. 

understand their mission in this sense; to them duty 
and conviction are far dearer than any earthly good. 1 

io. Purgatory. 

“I steadfastly hold that there is a purgatory, and 
that the souls therein detained are helped by the 
suffrages of the faithful. ’ ’ 

If we believe in God, a heaven, and a hell, it is 
unreasonable to deny a purgatory. God rewards and 
punishes each one according to his merits. He who 
departs this life in utter rebellion against God and His 
commandments, merits the eternal punishment of 
hell; he who dies in baptismal purity, immediately 
attains to the beatific vision of God in Heaven. But 
what about those souls who go into eternity not 
directly at enmity with God, yet burdened with minor 
sins? Nothing defiled can enter heaven: will all 
these souls then be condemned to everlasting fire? 
We must therefore accept a place of purification, or 
purgatory (as it is commonly called). 

The belief in such a place of purification, for the 
existence of which I can cite numerous authorities, is 
so congenial to our natural sentiments that even 
Protestants cannot eradicate it from their hearts, as in 
some cases they also pray for their dead. But in what 
state do they mentally put the dead for whom they 
pray? If they think they are in Heaven, these souls 
no longer need help. If they believe them to be in 
hell, and therefore eternally and irrevocably damned, 
it would hardly occur to one to pray for them at all. 

1 This has been proved by the complete failure of the 
so-called bread-basket law in Germany, which was intended 
to force our priests by material want, to renounce their Cath¬ 
olic principles. 


VENERATION OE SAINTS ETC. 303 

If then Protestants pray for the dead, they must 
believe them to be in a place between heaven and 
hell, that is, in the place of purification, or purgatory. 

11. The veneration of the Saints , especially of the 
Mother of God . 

“Likewise (I believe), that the Saints reigning 
together with Christ are to be honored, and invoked 
and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that 
their relics are to be held in veneration. ’ ’ 

This tenet of Catholic faith also corresponds per¬ 
fectly with natural feeling and common sense. It 
must be distorted out of all original shape before it 
can be reasonably attacked. I know Protestants are 
seized with a sudden aversion to superstition, when¬ 
ever they hear of the invocation of the saints and the 
veneration of relics. They picture to themselves some 
sort of idol worship. When all is explained, how¬ 
ever, the doctrine is found very natural, beautiful, 
and just; but non-Catholics usually think that under 
the Catholic veneration of saints and their relics we 
conceal something quite different from what we tell 
them. This something is a spectre that in reality has 
no existence. 

I11 what does the veneration of saints consist? In 
this, that a relative honor is paid to every one who 
has been distinguished for his virtue, and of whom it 
can be assumed that he is now reigning with Christ 
in heaven. If in common intercourse different degrees 
of honor and marks of esteem are given to different 
classes of society, why, in the kingdom of God, should 
not distinguished virtue have a particular recogni¬ 
tion? Of course, there is no question of divine honor 
being shown to the saints. Such an absurdity exists 
only in the imagination of the spectre hunter. 


304 Thk Trid^ntinb conpkssion. 

As regards the invocation of the saints, it is per¬ 
fectly natural that an orphan should appeal to his 
good mother whom he rightly believes to be in 
Heaven, to intercede fpr him with God. It is, of course, 
supposed that the mother in Heaven is aware of the 
prayers of her child on earth. Surely it is not impos¬ 
sible for God to impart this knowledge to her. Will 
He not rather do so in order to increase her happi¬ 
ness? You say: The child can pray directly to God; 
why, then, take this roundabout way through the 
mother? I ask, in reply: Is it not natural for a 
sincere and humble Christian to beg the prayers of 
those around him occasionally instead of always pray¬ 
ing to God for himself ? Whosoever denies this does 
not know the human heart. 

This is the essence of the Catholic veneration of 
saints. It developed of itself during the early 
Christian centuries. The people honored the graves 
of the Apostles; they prayed to the martyrs, — con¬ 
vinced that endurance of sufferings often so intoler¬ 
able, gave these favored souls a particular claim to a 
favorable hearing before the throne of God. To 
prevent abuse, the Church, at a later time, regulated 
the veneration; thus, public religious respect is shown 
only to the dead whose life and death have been 
examined into and been found worthy of such honor. 
This explains the canonical process of beatification 
and canonization. 

Naturally,the Church has always paid more honor 
to the Mother of God than to any of the saints. The 
angel was the first to show her veneration, when he 
said: “Hail, full of grace: the Tord is with thee: 
Blessed art thou among women. ’ ’ 1 And millions of 

1 St. buke, I, 28 . 


THK BLKSSLD VIRGIN. 


305 


lips repeat to this day, “Hail,full of grace,” realizing 
the prophetic words of Mary herself: “Behold, from 
henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” 1 

And cannot the words of St. John, the prophet of 
Patmos, also be applied to Mary? “And a great sign 
appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, 
and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown 
of twelve stars. . . . And there was seen another sign in 
heaven, and behold a great red dragon having seven 
heads and ten horns. . . . and he stood before the 
woman who was ready to be delivered: that, when 
she should be delivered he might devour her son. 
And she brought forth a man-child. . . . And there 
was a great battle in heaven: Michael and his angels 
fought with the dragon. . . . And that great dragon 
was cast out, that great serpent, who is called the 

devil and satan, who seduceth the whole world. 

And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the 
earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth 
the man-child. . . . And the dragon was angry with 
the woman and went to make war with the rest of her 
seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have 
the testimony of Jesus Christ.” 2 

This is the battle which the Catholic Church has had 
to fight since her birth. And as it was the hatred of 
Satan to the Son of God and His Virgin Mother which 
gave rise to this battle, the Church inscribed on the 
first banner she unfolded, the name of Mary with that 
of Jesus: for in the Apostles’ Creed the Saviour of the 
world is pointed out to us as “born of the Virgin 
Mary.” 

1 St. Luke, I, 48. 

2 Apocalypse of St. John. chap. XII. 

20 



306 the tridentine confession. 

From that time we have an unbroken chain of 
the Fathers of the Church and ecclesiastical writers 
all giving praise to Mary. “By her faith in the 
angel’s message,” writes the martyr Justin (died 
167), “she won back for us what the doubt of the first 
woman had robbed us of; she brought life to those to 
whom the first woman had brought death. ’ ’ 1 

“Mary is the source of salvation to the whole 
human race,” writes St. Irenaeus. 2 

About a century later St. Ephrem prays. “Im¬ 
maculate Virgin, Queen of all, hope of the depen¬ 
dent, our all-powerful Mother ! Safest harbor for the 
ship-wrecked, solace of the world, salvation of all! 
shelter and protect us under the wings of thy love 
and mercy.” 3 At the general Council of Ephesus 
(431 A. d.) St. Cyril of Alexandria, before the 
assembled bishops, turned to the image of the Blessed 
Virgin and said:* “Hail, Mary, Mother of God, 
treasure of the whole world, inextinguishable lamp, 
crown of virginity, sceptre of legitimate faith!” And 
we hear Basil of Seleucia: “Most Holy Virgin, what 
I might say forever in thy praise would not be enough 
to praise thee according to thy merit. Eook graci¬ 
ously from heaven upon us, that through thee we may 
appear without fear before the throne of thy Son.” 4 

“She is,” says St. Peter Chrysologus, (451 A. d.), 
“greater than heaven, stronger than earth, more com¬ 
prehensive than the earth’s sphere: because she alone 

1 Justin. Dialog, c. Thryph. n. 100 (Migne gr. t. 6. 
p. 710). 

2 Irenaeus adv. haer. 1. 3. c. 22. n. 4 (Migne gr. t. 7. 
p. 959); cf. 1. 5. c. 19. n. 1). 

3 Malou, pietas Mariana, Eovanii 1847 p. 444. serm. 143. 

4 Basilius Sel. ed. Comb. I. p. 367). 


THK BLKSSKD VIRGIN. 


307 


comprehended God, whom the world could not con¬ 
tain; she bore him who sustains the globe, she gave 
birth to the Creator, she nourished the Support of all 
life.” 1 

It is the same in the Middle Ages as in early 
Christian times. St. Bernard writes: “Holy Virgin, 
all men, all times look to thee. The price of our 
redemption was paid, we were delivered, the moment 
thou gavest thy consent. With one word thou couldst 
help us; and therefore Adam and all his race, banished 
from Paradise, cast themselves at thy holy feet, 
because the hope of the miserable, the deliverance 
of captives, the salvation of the whole world, depended 
on thee. ’ ’ 

Mary spoke this word “Fiat,” this “Be it done:” 2 
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst 
us, und we saw his glory.” 3 Therefore, with Dante 
I salute the Mother of God: 

“So mighty art thou, Lady, and so great, 

That he who grace desireth, and comes not 
To thee for aidance, fain would have desire 
Fly without wings.” 4 

12. The veneration of relics and images . 

I believe that the relics of Saints “are to be held 
in honor. 

“I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of 
the Mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of other 
saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due 
honor and veneration are to be given them. ’ 

1 Petr. Chrysol. sermo 143 (Migne lat. t. 52 p. 584 B). 

2 St. Luke I, 38. 

3 St. John I, 14. 

4 Dante, Paradiso XXXIII, 5. 


308 the tridentine confession. 

He who honors Christ and His saints must of 
necessity hold their relics and their images in honor. 
This is such a self-evident conclusion, that our Cath¬ 
olic practice of the veneration of relics and pictures 
can be exposed to hatred and contempt only through- 
misrepresentation. It is asserted that we attribute to 
pictures and relics a mysterious inner power of their 
own. Every well-instructed Catholic child laughs at 
such nonsense. 

/ 

Jesus Himself taught us that relics can be vener¬ 
ated with true devotion, as you will see in the follow¬ 
ing incident: “A woman who was under an issue of 
blood twelve years and had suffered many things from 
many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and 
was nothing the better, but rather the worse: when 
she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind 
him, and touched his garments: for she said: If I shall 
touch but his garments, I shall be whole. And forth¬ 
with the fountain of her blood was dried up ; and she 
felt in her body that she was healed of the evil. 

“And immediately Jesus knowing in himself the 
virtue that had proceeded from him, turning to the 
multitude, said: Who hath touched my garments? 
And his disciples said to him: Thou seest the multi¬ 
tude thronging thee, and sayest thou, who hath 
touched me? 

“And he looked about to see her who had done 
this. But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing 
what was done in her, came and fell down before him, 
and told him all the truth. And he said to her: 
Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole: go in 
peace, and be thou whole of thy disease.” 1 

1 St. Mark V, 25, 34. 


INDULGENCES. 309 

Is not Christ able and willing to reward similar 
faith in the same manner today ? 

Non-Catholics will probably reply that our relics 
are not genuine. Of course, there is no article of faith 
as to the genuineness of this or that relic; our Catholic 
archaeologists themselves differ sometimes on the sub¬ 
ject. This much, however, is certain: the Church 
permits a relic to be set up for veneration only on 
reliable evidence. But it is worthy of remark that 
Protestants are readily inclined to regard our relics as 
false, while it does not occur to them to doubt, for 
example, the authenticity of a coin exhibited in a col¬ 
lection and said to belong to the reign of Augustus or 
Tiberius — or the genuineness of an ancient statue of 
Demosthenes or Cicero, or even of an Egyptian obelisk 
which is some centuries older than any of our relics. 
Learn to criticise the conduct and actions of Catholics 
dispassionately and impartially. 

To afford you another example from Holy Script¬ 
ure in support of our veneration of relics — one which 
refers not to the garments of our Lord, but to relics of 
the saints — I refer you to the account given in the 
Acts of the Apostles, according to which God wrought 
special miracles by the hand of Paul, so that even 
there were brought from his body to the sick handker¬ 
chiefs and aprons. 1 And the sick were brought forth 
into the street, that when Peter came his shadow might 
fall on them. 2 And God sanctioned this devotion of 
the people by public miracles. 

13. Indulgences. “I also affirm that the power of 
granting indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, 

1 Acts of the Apostles XIX, 11, 12. 

2 Acts of the Apostles V. 15, 16. 


3 io 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


and that the use of them is most wholesome to Chris¬ 
tian people. ’ ’ 

As a penitent confession secures the sinner against 
the everlasting punishment of hell, so, after the for¬ 
giveness of the sin, the indulgence secures him against 
the possible remaining temporal punishment. For, 
according to the Catholic catechism, an indulgence, 
which is granted after the Sacrament of Penance, is a 
remission of the temporal punishment due to sins 
already forgiven, a punishment that we must suffer 
either in this life or hereafter in purgatory. If Christ 
declared to his representative: “Whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven,” it is 
difficult to comprehend why this universal authority, 
this power of absolving from deadly sin and the pun¬ 
ishment of hell, should have been bestowed without 
the limited authority to remit possible temporal 
punishment. 

It is unnecessary to tell you that the little history 
of Tetzel’s indulgence box (from this you can easily 
divine my opinion of this relic preserved at Jiiterbogk), 
and the pardon of sins for money, belong, like so many 
others, not to the department of history, but to that 
of fable. An indulgence is, as defined, not a forgive¬ 
ness of sin, but merely a remission of the temporal 
punishment due to sin. If an indulgence is now and 
then called “a full remission of sins” (plena peccato- 
rum remissio), the word “sins” is in this ca.se used in 
a wider sense, and includes the punishment also. 
But the Church has never sold indulgences for money; 
the contrary opinion is founded on error. The Church 
is accustomed, it is true, to join the grant of indulgen¬ 
ces to the performance of any good work whatever, 


OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE. 311 

for example, to a visit to a Church, to the recitation of 
certain prayers, as well as to the giving of alms for 
pious or charitable ends. It is as great an absurdity 
to assert that the Church by so doing sells a remission 
of punishment, or the full pardon of sin, for money, 
as to assert that God sells Heaven for money, because 
He promises it to the charitable. 

14. Obedience to the Pope. “I acknowledge the 
Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church for the 
Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and I promise 
true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, Successor of 
St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus 
Christ.” 

This obedience to the Pope is the last article of the 
Tridentine confession of faith which requires an 
explanation. 

There is no authority on earth except that which 
is established by God; absolute, unqualified obedience 
can be demanded only by God, not by the Church, 
and still less by the state. God has assigned to every 
human magistrate a limited exercise of power, requir¬ 
ing a limited exercise of obedience from the respective 
subordinates. Obedience is due to parents in questions 
of education and household arrangements; to the state 
in the public affairs of civil life; to ecclesiastical super¬ 
iors in questions of religion and faith. Hence it is 
incumbent on the latter to make known to us our duty 
towards God, towards our neighbor, and towards our¬ 
selves; and we must believe their teachings, especially 
the teaching of the supreme, infallible teacher, the 
representative of Christ; we must obey their regula¬ 
tions in the province of religion. 

This is the obedience we owe to the successors of 


312 


THE TRIDENTINE CONFESSION. 


the Apostles, and especially to the successor of the 
Prince of the Apostles. 

“I do at this present freely profess and sincerely 
hold this true Catholic Faith, out of which no one can 
be saved. And I promise most constantly to retain 
and confess the same entire and unstained with God’s 
assistance, to the end of my life. ... So help me God 
and this His Holy Gospel. ’ ’ 

Thus closes the Confession of Faith formulated by 
the Council of Trent. 



io. Catholic and Protestant Conditions. 


(i. Extract from Edgar’s Fetter.) 

I am now at rest regarding theological questions, 
dear Father; I see that the objections raised against 
Catholic doctrine are founded, either on a misunder¬ 
standing, or on an insufficient knowledge of primitive 
Christianity. As to any other theological question 
which might still appear obscure to me, I doubt not 
that you will solve it as easily as you did the others 
(on the Mass, the veneration of saints, etc.). More¬ 
over, I am convinced that all these questions must be 
decided not by private judgment, but solely by the 
authority of the Church instituted and preserved from 
error by Christ. 

So much for the theory. I examine matters in 
practical life, however, and I come upon apparently 
insoluble riddles. I say to myself, if the Catholic 
religion is the only true one, then the conditions 
existing in Catholic countries and in Catholic times 
ought to be the most salutary. But, in reality, the 
opposite seems to be true. Since the sixteenth cen¬ 
tury— since Protestantism attained to power, I see an 
intellectual development surpassing everything previ¬ 
ously existing; and at present the Protestant countries, 
such as Prussia and England, are at the height of 
civilization, while Italy and Spain, outdistanced, are 
afflicted with social revolutions. 

How do you explain this? 

(313) 


3 H CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CONDITIONS. 

(2. Father H.’s Answer.) 

In answer to your question I might give you whole 
volumes of civil history. But for lack of space I must 
content myself with a few leading points, which are 
really only suggestions. Therefore: 

1. First, be on your guard in judging Catholic and 
Protestant conditions according to the impressions 
received in your youth. You must never forget that 
from your infancy your bringing up and your educa¬ 
tion have been essentially Protestant. You have con¬ 
tinually heard of the advantages of a Protestant mode 
of government, and the disadvantages of one that is 
Catholic. Every man is the child of his epoch and 
his country; such are you, and such were your parents 
and teachers. 

2. This premised, we will examine objectively, 
first, the epochs — Catholic as well as Protestant. 

Following your initiative, I will consider three 
centuries — the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth 

— as illustrations of Protestant rule; and afterwards 
the three preceding centuries — the thirteenth, four¬ 
teenth and fifteenth — as standing in contrast immedi¬ 
ately under Catholic power. 

Now I ask: Which of the two periods exhibits 
greater progress in civilization? I do not ask, when 
did civilization reach a higher plane of development 

— at the end of the former or at the end of the latter 
period — because it is evident that in the year 1800 
civilization must have been more advanced than in 
the year 1500; such would have been the case — and 
even in a greater degree, I suspect — without the rise 
of Protestantism. He who begins to climb at a height 
of 1500 feet above the sea level will naturally attain a 


CATHOIylC VERSUS PROTESTANT CENTURIES. 315 

greater altitude in three hours than one who begins at 
the height of 1200 feet. That, however, is not the 
question, but which of the two has climbed more 
rapidly; and which —the Catholic or the Protestant 
epoch of civilization — has in three centuries travelled 
over the greater stretch on the road to culture ? 

To the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth cen¬ 
turies — the Catholic — belong the development of 
Gothic architecture, and the magnificent poetry of the 
Middle Ages in Germany and France, as well as in 
Italy (I need speak only of Dante). To these cen¬ 
turies also belong the invention of gunpowder, the art 
of printing, the opening up of a maritime route around 
Africa and the discovery of America; to them belongs, 
also, the noble flower of the rich German Hanseatic 
league and the guild. 

On the other hand, the Thirty Year’s War, which 
despoiled Germany of about half her population and 
devastated all the surrounding country, belongs to the 
Protestant centuries, from the 16th to the 18th; to 
them belongs also the princely despotism in virtue of 
which each little German potentate saw his unattain¬ 
able model in Touis XIV’s court of Versailles; to 
these times finally belong the French revolution, the 
triumph of infidelity and socialism, etc. 

Which period, then, shows a more satisfactory 
development, the Catholic or the Protestant? I know 
that there were wars and revolutions in Catholic times 
also; but no war like the Thirty Year’s War, and no 
revolution like that of 1789; and I know that there 
were discoveries and inventions during the three 
Protestant centuries; but hardly a more important dis¬ 
covery than that of America, nor a more valuable in¬ 
vention than that of printing. 


316 cathodic and protest ant conditions. 

Besides, I must enter a protest, if you consider 
Protestantism as holding an exclusive monopoly 
of the last three centuries. If you wish Catholic 
names of this period I can give you Calderon, Shake¬ 
speare (?), Raphael, Michael Angelo, Leonardo da 
Vinci, Corregio, Rubens, Palaestrina, Lotti, Tasso, 
Copernicus, Francis of Sales, Charles Borromaeus, 
Baronius, Bellarmin, Suarez, Toledo (and you can 
scarcely parallel your Protestant theologians with 
these latter); more recent times have produced Mozart, 
Haydn, and Beethoven; a Cornelius, an Overbeck, a 
Secchi; Kleutgen and Franzelin; the historians 
Gfroerer, Hurter, Klopp, Janssen, the poet Weber, etc. 
If, in defense, you refer to such names as Kant, Hegel, 
Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, then I might remark that 
you can scarcely cite these men as belonging to the 
ranks of Protestantism. 

However, art and science are not the blessings for 
which the Son of God became man — not the fruits by 
which all men were to recognize Christianity. These 
fruits are faith and morality. And on these points 
what has the Catholic epoch to show, and what the 
Protestant? When Luther appeared on the scene he 
found all Christendom devout and sound, with some 
few exceptions in individuals. On the other hand, 
the result of the schism brought about by him is 
plainly shown by the fact that after three hundred 
years of Protestant rule, a writer of their own camp 
(David Strauss) is forced to ask and to deny the ques¬ 
tion: Are we still Christian? 

Which epoch, therefore, the Catholic or the Prot¬ 
estant, stands in full evidence as the representative of 
genuine Christianity ? 


CATHOLIC COUNTRIES OF TODAY. 317 

3. Let us now compare the Catholic and Protes¬ 
tant countries of the present day. 

First, I willingly grant that France, Spain, and 
Italy are more afflicted by revolutions than Prussia 
and England. But who causes the revolutions ? Who 
but those parties inimical to the Catholic Church, 
and by this very fact allied to Protestantism. It is 
not the Pope and the ecclesiastical states that have 
caused revolution in Italy, but the friendship of Pied¬ 
mont for Prussia. Revolutions have been brought 
about in France, Spain, and Portugal, not by ad¬ 
herents to ultramontane principles, but by their ad¬ 
versaries, who have repeated in these Catholic coun¬ 
tries, the same game played by their ancestors in 
Germany. In early times Germany also was purely 
Catholic, but our ancestors breaking with the past, 
fought in league with France and Sweden against 
their rightful emperor, and, revolting against estab¬ 
lished customs, gave rise to a new order of things. 
This accomplished, there were of course fewer revolu¬ 
tions, because we Catholics were then the oppressed 
in Protestant countries, and Catholics are forbidden to 
stir up insurrection. Even the most revolting scenes 
of the “Kulturkampf” did not drive us to violent 
resistance. Our bishops and priests were dragged to 
prison like criminals and treated as the lowest con¬ 
victs; priests who bestowed the consolations of religion 
upon the dying were hunted like wild beasts; the 
Catholic people gnashed their teeth in anger, but they 
did not revolt. 

That the French Revolution could be even pos¬ 
sible, the Jesuit order (whose destruction had been 
maliciously planned some decades earlier through the 


318 CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CONDITIONS. 

intrigues of a Choiseul and a Pompadour) must needs 
be deprived of the education of youth, and of their in¬ 
fluence over the people. Eouis Blanc shall inform 
you who brought this Revolution about. “It is im¬ 
portant,” says this historian, “that the reader should 
be made acquainted with the secret plots by which the 
revolutionists of that time undermined Throne and 
Altar in a much more effective and thorough manner 
than the encyclopaedists. This was by means of an 
association, composed of men of all countries, all 
religions and every social position, united to one an¬ 
other by symbolic rites, bound by oath to preserve in¬ 
violable the mystery of their inner workings — men, 
who submit to the most rigid trials, who occupy them¬ 
selves with fantastic ceremonies, but otherwise practise 
charity, and deem themselves all equal, though they 
are divided into three classes, apprentices, journey¬ 
men, and masters: — this is freemasonry. On the eve 
of the French revolution the masons had attained a 
powerful influence; scattered over all Europe, they 
adapted themselves to the reasoning spirit of Ger¬ 
many, kept France in the greatest excitement, and 
everywhere appeared as an association founded on 
principles opposed to those of civil society. 5 ’ 1 

4. Such are the facts, regarding revolutions which 
Catholics are so invidiously accused of exciting. This 
libel was revived quite recently on the occasion 
of the workingmen’s strike in Belgium; and even 
Minister von Puttkamer declared in the German 
Reichstag: “The Catholic Church in Belgium was 

1 Louis Blanc. Histoire de la Revolution frangaise, by 
Fava (Bishop of Grenoble) : La Franc-Ma^onnerie, Paris. 
1880, p. 75. 


WHO CAUSES REVOLUTIONS. 


319 


not able to prevent the excesses of socialism. ’ ’ Cer¬ 
tainly not, when her rights were encroached upon as 
they are in that country. 

A fact quite overlooked is that the manufacturers 
and operatives who were concerned in the matter were 
the most rabid enemies of the Catholic Church. The 
most prominent of the great manufacturers, Baudoux, 
is said never to have employed an official or operative 
who was not ‘ ‘ Anticatholic. ’ ’ And he reaped precisely 
what he had sown. 

Regarding this assertion of Mr. von Puttkamer, 
the “Moniteur de Rome” writes: 

“It should not be a matter of astonishment that 
only Catholic countries are the prey of socialism. The 
leaders of the Internationals have always directed 
their heaviest blows against the Catholic Church. 
The Catholic countries alone have chosen to bear with 
them to the limit of patience, because the demagogue 
cannot prevail while the Church stands as a firm 
social institution. For that reason revolution has 
done its utmost to suppress the Church from public 
life, and endeavored to deaden the effects of her 
charity, and to stop up the spring of her inexhaustible 
remedies, in the belief that the Church is the safest 
and the most permanent bulwark of society. The 
consequence is that the Roman races, at this time 
largely Catholic, are by their very character more ex¬ 
posed to the danger of passing immediately from these 
prevaling doctrines to their logical consequences and 
their violent carrying out in social life; while the 
phlegmatic German temperament occupies itself more 
with theoretic formulas, and pauses before final con¬ 
sequences. But in spite of these special dangers to 


320 CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CONDITIONS. 

Catholic countries, history proves, that neither in 
Italy, Spain, France, nor Belgium did the socialistic 
movement take its rise, but in Prussia, Protestant 
England, and schismatic Russia. In no country in 
the world is the socialistic party so powerfully organ¬ 
ized as in Germany. Numerous political representa¬ 
tives, historians, talented journalists, scholars, — all 
classes and conditions — are found in the socialistic 
Babel. Indeed, has not one of the leaders in Prussia 
declared socialism to be so strongly organized there, 
that he has never had a fear of the supporters of the 
opposition? From the works of Eaveley, Neyer, and 
John Scherr on Socialism it may be seen that, by 
means of organization, boldness and energy, German 
socialism and Russian nihilism have spread into all 
countries. ’ ’ 

Stocker, the court chaplain of Berlin, tried to make 
the Catholic Church responsible for the atrocious 
actions of the Belgian laborers. In refutation we 
quote the following from the “Cologne National 
Gazette”: 

“Essen, April 8. Touching the accusations which 
Eiberals and Conservatives, like Stocker, do not 
hesitate to launch against the Catholic Church because 
of the labor excesses in Belgium, I might cite a public 
conversation, the authenticity of which I guarantee. 
When the labor trouble was at its height, and every¬ 
one was interested in the question, an educated man 
asked a high official in the Krupp establishment: 
“What would you do here if your employees should 
commit such excesses?” “Such things as happened 
in Belgium could not take place here in Essen,” was 
the reply. “And why not?” “Because the influence 


the: influence of the: catholic church. 321 

of the Catholic Church with the hands is so great, 
that she could immediately smother such outbreaks in 
their birth. ’ ’ There can be no doubt as to the real 
existence of this influence to which the official so 
emphatically points. Moreover — a condition of no 
small importance in gaining such influence—the clergy 
in our great labor districts have been studying the 
labor question for years, in order to treat it in accor¬ 
dance with Catholic principles. ’ ’ 1 

5. However, it is possible that among Catholics—for 
example among the leaders of the French Revolution 
— there was greater depravity than among Protes¬ 
tants. Why? Because the Catholic receives much 
greater graces than the Protestant, and therefore 
renders himself much more culpable by the abuse of 
them. There is an old adage : “Corruptio optimi pes- 
sima — The best, corrupted, becomes the worst. ” If 
the Catholic profits by the means of grace the Church 
offers, he will acquire a much greater power in the 
moral sphere than the Protestant. Thousands of 
saints, as well as the religious orders with their life of 
sacrifice, give proof of this. Where can Protestantism 
furnish such a spectacle in the moral world? But if 
the Catholic abuses his abundant means of grace, he 
goes much further towards the other extreme than the 
Protestant. The Protestant does not entirely break 
with his Church if he absents himself from public 
worship and from the sacraments; but conscience tells 
the Catholic that he commits a mortal sin, for in¬ 
stance, by omitting the Paschal confession and Com¬ 
munion. And if he will not humble himself to confess 
his sins to a priest ordained by God, then hatred of 

1 Koln. Volkszeitung, April 8, 1886, 1. Bl. 

21 


322 CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CONDITIONS. 

the Church takes possession of his heart; hence the 
phenomenon, that diabolical hatred of the Church 
and Christianity are often found in Catholic countries 
side by side with heroic virtues and zealous participa¬ 
tion in the ecclesiastical life. Protestantism leaves 
the masses more indifferent, in a bad sense as well as 
in a good one; the Protestant cares little about his 
religion because he is not troubled by it, for it 
demands no submission to an ecclesiastical teaching 
body, no confession of individual sins, no Sunday 
attendance .at Church, and no fasting. 

6 . You remarked further that the Protestant coun¬ 
tries of the present day are generally in advance of the 
Catholic countries. If this be true, then the blame 
lies with those-revolutionary tendencies which under¬ 
mine Catholic countries, leaving the Protestant coun¬ 
tries on the contrary, more tranquil. And first among 
these tendencies, I must rank infidel philosophy and 
freemasonry, which, in Catholic countries, have seized 
the helm of the ship of state, and wage silent war 
against throne and Altar. The Jesuit order, as I said 
before, was the victim of their calumnies and outrages 
in former centuries; its suppression gave a heavy blow 
to higher public instruction in the Catholic countries 
and led to the loss of rich colonies by Spain and Por¬ 
tugal. 

. If I say little about the freemasons it is because I 
attach little importance to their work in Protestant 
countries; for, since the freemasons do not fear Prot¬ 
estantism as they do Catholicism, they have not the 
same motive for directing their internal activity 
against the former. Protestantism gives them little 
trouble; it is even at times allied with them against 


Freemasonry. 


323 

the ever impregnable Catholicism, though the firmer 
and more positive elements in Protestantism as well 
as legitimate monarchy are also detested by them. 
Doubtless the Protestant kingdoms will become the 
targets for the freemasons’ revolutionary plans after 
monarchy has been suppressed or overthrown among 
the Latin races. 

7. I am far from attributing such destructive plans 
to all freemasons, or even to all lodges; but there is no 
doubt that freemasonry in general, with its talk of 
“the great master of the universe,” is directly opposed 
to Christianity and its triune God, to the divinity of 
Jesus Christ, and particularly to the Catholic Church. 
Bear in mind, moreover, that in many Catholic coun¬ 
tries, both in past and present times, freemasons 
have guided the helm of State, and have been able to 
frame laws to restrict the power of the Catholic Church; 
besides, in most Catholic countries—for instance, in 
Austria, Bavaria, France, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, etc., 
— the secular power has managed to wrest from the 
Church the privilege of naming Bishops. In the pres¬ 
ence of these facts you will admit that it is not neces¬ 
sarily the fault of the Church, if the religious life in 
these countries is not always what it should be. 

I will adduce only one example, and it shall be 
from Austria. Emperor Joseph II. was the pupil of 
the freemasons. At the time of his accession, there 
existed in various dioceses flourishing seminaries, as 
prescribed by the Council of Trent; from them went 
forth faithful, devoted priests, irreproachable in morals. 
Joseph II. suppressed these institutions, ostensibly in 
the interests of higher education; and so-called gen¬ 
eral seminaries, for several dioceses conjointly, were 


324 CATHOLIC AND PROTFSTANT CONDITIONS. 

established in their stead. Being under political 
guardianship, these general seminaries were pest-holes 
of infidelity and immorality; nevertheless, they were 
for a long time the only educational institutions avail¬ 
able to the Austrian clergy. 1 

It is certainly not the fault of the Catholic Church 
if everything is not as it should be in Catholic coun¬ 
tries. While the Catholic Church has been obliged to 
battle against open persecution in Protestant countries, 
— for example, in England and Holland, — in many 
Catholic countries she has been subjected to a kind of 
self-poisoning, if we may so speak, by statesmen inim¬ 
ical to her; and this is perhaps worse than open per¬ 
secution. 

Lastly, still other factors must be taken into 
consideration, if we would explain the difference in 
conditions between Catholic and Protestant countries. 
Among these are nationality and the historic past. 

The Italians, French, and Spanish are more hot- 
blooded than the Germans, English, Danes, and 
Swedes. What wonder, then, that revolutions are 
more frequent among them? Italy had enjoyed a high 
degree of civilization for over a thousand years before 
civilization entered Brandenburg and Pomerania with 
Christianity, under the Ottos. It is not strange, then, 
that Italy should show traces of decline not found in 
the Protestant North. 

Nevertheless, I boldly assert that, as regards faith , 
purity , and true happiness } the Catholic countries stand 
much higher than the Protestant countries , or schismatic 
Russia. 

1 Further, see Father Hammerstein’s “Catholicity and 
Protestantism,” p. 106. 


SUICIDE AMONG CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS. 325 

And what proofs have we for this ■ unheard of 
opinion as you probably consider it? The founda¬ 
tion of all religion and morality is belief in a per¬ 
sonal God and in the fundamental truths of Chris¬ 
tianity. Go into Catholic Spain and Italy, then into 
Protestant Mecklenburg or Pomerania, and judge for 
yourself where the more lively faith flourishes, the 
more practical Christianity, the deeper religious sensi¬ 
bility, the greater share in the religious life, and, 
I may add, the higher morality in the strict sense of 
the word. There is no doubt in my mind that the 
Catholic South is far better off in this respect than, for 
instance, Protestant Denmark and Sweden. 

In proof of this, I will give data which may serve 
as a standard of faith and morality, and especially of 
true happiness. 

8. The number of suicides in a year among Cath¬ 
olics over the whole world amounts to between forty 
and fifty-eight to the million, among Protestants to 
one hundred and ninety. During the years from 1871 
to 1875 the suicides to the million averaged 13 in 
Spain, 32 in Italy, 1331 in Prussia, 258 in Denmark, 
and 268 in the kingdom of Saxony. 

From this you can see that the picture you have 
drawn from youth up of the wretched condition of 
Catholic countries, and the happiness of the “flourish¬ 
ing and enlightened” Protestant lands, needs some 
correction. 

Or, do you now intend to turn my own argument 
against me — that nationality, climate, legislation, the 
historic past, etc., must be taken into consideration 
along with such statistical comparisons, and that 
everything cannot be explained by difference of 
religion ? 


326 CATHOLIC AND PROTEST ANT CONDITIONS. 

Agreed. Let us take a case in which all these 
variable elements are on a pretty equal footing. Let 
us compare the most prominent Protestant provinces 
of Prussia with the most prominent Catholic ones, and 
see what the number of suicides is in each. The fol¬ 
lowing is taken from the official tables of statistics for 
the years 1875—1881: 



Per cent Protestant 

Suicides. 


Population. 


In Schleswig-Holstein. 

98.6 

287 

In Brandenburg. 

97 

218 

In Saxony . 

93.2 

245 

In Westphalia. 

46 

95 

In Posen.,. 

31 

72 

In Rhineland .. 

27 

83 


And these numbers are not peculiar to these years 
and these Prussian provinces; they may be said to be 
constant (with slight variations) for all times and 
places. 1 The statistician von Oettingen shows con¬ 
clusively that Saxony, the “cradle of .suicide,” is at 
the same time its widest field of action; he speaks of it 
as a colossal German mountain of suicide, to which 
from the four quarters of the earth the suicides betake 
themselves. 2 

9. If in the domain of sacrifice and religious 
spirit you wish to find proof of the effects of different 
religions under similar conditions, statistics will show 
that in Prussia donations and testamentary bequests 
(approved by royal permission) to the Church and 
ecclesiastical institutions are always greater among 
Catholics than among Protestants. 

1 Cf. Father Hammerstein’s “Erinnerungen”, 3. Aufl., 
p. 236. — Winfrid, p. 187 ff. 

2 V. Oettingen, Moralstatistik, 3. Aufl., p. 758—760. — 
Cf. Father Hammerstein’s “Katholizismus und Protestantis- 
mus,” p. 120 ff. 








MATERIAL, SUPPORT OF RELIGION. 327 



1880—1884 

(Average.) 

1888 

1890 

1892 

The Catholic con¬ 
tribution .Mk. 

1,332,824 

2,561,944 

1,412,000 

3,285,436 

The Protestant 
contribution. 

735,396 

1,158,430 

972,000 

1,948,605 


Besides, when you take into consideration that the 
Protestant population is 64.62 percent, the Catholic 
only 33.74 percent of the whole, you will see that 
the Catholic contributions are fourfold that of the 
Protestant. You must remember, too, that the Prot¬ 
estants are for the most part richer than the Catholics; 
that the Catholics from fear of secularization and the 
effects of the “May L,aws“ do not readily entrust their 
institutions to state supervision; that many who enter 
a religious order take their property with them for the 
Church and charitable purposes; finally, that the 
plundering of the Holy See, and the prohibition law 
(Sperrgesetz) require yet further colossal sacrifices 
of Catholics, which are not taken cognizance of by 
the government: all this makes the comparison tell 
more strongly in favor of the Catholics. 

10. If you wish to draw from statistics a standard 
for morality in the strictest sense of the word, 1 examine 
those of the Prussian government for the years 1872 
—1881. 

1 The development of this point, together with the ac¬ 
companying statistics, both in the text proper and in the 
appendix, has been omitted in the English translation. — 
Translator. 













ii. Apostasy and Conversion. 

Edgar’s Tetter. 

Reverend Father, your last letter dealt a heavy 
blow to my preconceived views. If the Catholic 
countries are happier than the Protestant, and if, as 
you say, the number of suicides is a fixed standard 
which shows a profound interior difference between 
Catholics and Protestants, then I must prefer Catholi¬ 
cism also from the standpoint of practical life. 

But if Protestantism is untenable theoretically, and 
not to be preferred to Catholicism practically, how 
came it that in the sixteenth century the people 
accepted Protestantism with such enthusiasm? This 
is a riddle which I leave you to solve. 

Father H.’s Answer. 

As to suicides, it is certain that, according to exist¬ 
ing standards, they are three or four times more 
frequent among Protestants than among Catholics; 
this is attested by official statistics, and acknowledged 
by the Protestant party. If the numbers vary a little, 
the variation is accounted for by the fact that suicides 
increase with the progressive disintegration of Christen¬ 
dom. The mean number of suicides in the kingdom 
of Saxony for the years from 1871 to 1875 was 258 in 
the million: some years later this number had ad¬ 
vanced to 408. 

Now as to the enthusiastic reception of Protes¬ 
tantism by the people of the sixteenth century. This 
(328) 


HOW ENGLAND WAS PROTESTANTIZED. 329 

is but one of the host of historical misrepresentations 
taught in Protestant schools, and taken for granted 
among you; others, too, invite examination — for ex¬ 
ample, the alleged destruction of Magdeburg by Tilly, 
the tales about Tetzel and his indulgence-chest, the 
established account of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 
of the Inquisition, of the Jesuit Order, etc. But this 
is not the place to go into all that. For more detailed 
information on these subjects I refer you to an excel¬ 
lent little book: “Historical Falsehoods.” 

Your last letter urges me to throw a little more 
light on one historical falsehood — the current belief 
that the people of the sixteenth century hailed the 
innovation with enthusiasm. How great this joy was 
you can understand from the fact that Henry VIII., 
in order to reform England, executed by fire and sword 
no less than 30,000 people. His fellow - reformer 
Cranmer justified this method of conversion by the 
Bible. And because Mary, the Catholic, on ascending 
the throne, brought this Cranmer and other hangmen- 
slaves of the royal murderer to just punishment, she 
was stigmatized in the annals of Protestant history as 
“the bloody”. Elizabeth, her successor, is called the 
“good Queen Bess,” although in one year she assisted 
more people from life to death by the most cunning 
and varied tortures, because they would not depart 
from the faith of their fathers, than Mary had allowed 
to be put to death during her whole reign. Notwith¬ 
standing this government of fear under Elizabeth, it 
was long before Catholicism was extirpated. Even on 
June 11, 1584, Parsons writes that in the month of 
May five Catholics were publicly whipped at Win- 


330 


APOSTASY AND CONVERSION. 


Chester, not one of them apostatizing; at the same 
time capital punishment was inflicted on four Catholics 
because of their faith. A contemporary reports: 
“What is of greatest concern to the poorer classes of 
the Catholic population (peasants and laborers who 
are innumerable in the country), they are unable to 
pay the iniquitous Mass-fine, and still less the fines 
imposed for absence from the Calvinistic service; hence 
they are cruelly beaten in the public market-place, as 
recently happened in various places, particularly in 
Winchester. Some have their ears cut off, or are 

branded, while others are-’ ’ But the pen refuses 

to write more. 1 

The joy, my friend, with which the people received 
the “pure gospel” was not, after all, so overwhelming! 

In like manner, by the deceit and violence of sec¬ 
ular rulers, were Sweden, Norway, and Denmark 
“reformed”, that is, forced to forswear the faith of 
their fathers. 

Now we come to Germany: how was the new 
teaching inaugurated there ? 

I will not trouble you with quotations from Luther’s 
writings, as, for instance, his advice to cleanse our 
hands in the blood of the bishops; for I know the 
passages are usually accounted for b}^ the language of 
that day and the violent character of Luther. But if 
you wish to get a clear idea of how Protestantism ob¬ 
tained the mastery in Germany, you must peruse the 
reports of some eye-witnesses, given in Janssen’s 
“History of the German people.” 

In 1556, in the Electorate of the Palatine, Elector 
Otto Henry decreed, on the basis of the Augsburg Con- 

1 Bellesheim, Cardinal Allen (Mayence, Kirchheim, 
1885), p. 101. 


HOW GERMANY RECEIVED THE NEW DOCTRINES. 331 

fession, that no “papist idolatry” should in the future 
be tolerated in the country. After making away with 
the “idols” in the Church of the Holy Spirit at 
Heidelsburg, the Elector issued the “Order of Destruc¬ 
tion” for the whole country. Electoral inspectors 
were commanded to remove the pictures from the 
churches “in the night,” and “to demolish the car¬ 
vings and smear the paintings with dark colors.” 
‘ ‘The stained glass windows’ ’ were also to be destroyed. 
The inspectors wrote, that on account of “the clearing 
out of the churches and the removal of the pictures’ ’ 
they “met with all kinds of angry reproaches” from 
the people, who offered them “all sorts of offenses 
and insults.” 

In accordance with the tenet ‘ ‘All vows are wicked, 
and all monasteries and nunneries an outrage before 
God,” the suppression of the monasteries still existing 
was brought about, and the confiscation of their rev¬ 
enues ordered. No outrage was too great for perpetra¬ 
tion. Although the monastery of Waldsassen was 
under the protection of-the king of Bohemia, the 
Elector forbade the Catholic service there, took away 
the church ornaments, and appointed Eutheran 
preachers. . . . The Elector ordered the abbot and 
several monks who disobeyed his mandates and stead¬ 
ily persevered in their faith, to be put in prison in 
Amberg. 

In November, 1556, the Electoral commissioners 
entered the monastery at Gnadenberg, and informed 
the nuns that their vows were the work of the devil, 
and “their religion blasphemy, idolatry, and a vain se¬ 
ductive human doctrine. ’ ’ But it is recorded, that they 
met with insuperable opposition from “the obstinate 


332 


APOSTASY AND CONVERSION. 


jades.” In pathetic words the abbess and the whole 
community protest that “all sorts of unfaithfulness, 
envy, hate, and persecution are abroad in the world; 
crimes are innumerable and increase daily;” that 
“they are all decrepit, old, and feeble, and have 
brought to the monastery their property and whatever 
they have received from their relations and friends; 
they hope to observe their vows in voluntary poverty, 
fasting and prayer; they know no other than God’s 
word, because they are of strong faith, and religious, 
and they beg to be allowed to remain there. ’ ’ The 
preacher (“reformed”) took from the tabernacle the 
consecrated Host and the chrism. The confessor of 
the nuns, a weak, sickly old priest, was forced to leave 
immediately in the depth of winter, notwithstanding 
the protest of the nuns: “For nine years he has lab¬ 
ored for us, and behaved honorably in all things. He 
is charged with perverting us. That is not true. O 
dear sirs, believe it for God’s sake!” Then the nuns 
entreated that they might at least have their little pos¬ 
sessions returned and be allowed to depart. But in 
vain. They were sent to the already Protestantized 
monastery of Seligporten, and Gnadenberg con¬ 
fiscated. 1 

In like manner Protestantism found entrance into 
Pfalz-Zweibriicken. “The noble prince Wolfgang,” 
boasts one of his followers, “does not allow mistakes 
to be made through papist scruples of conscience, 
which are empty as air, and to be scorned as idolatrous. 
He roots out the weeds, and plants the divine word; 
he is a champion of Christ just as the noble Duke 

1 Janssen, History, Bd. 4, 1. — 12th edition (Herder, 
Freiburg), pp. 39—40. 


Germany And thk new doctrines. 333 

Christopher of Wiirttemberg, even if he does not 
always agree with the Confession, as is announced in 
Wiirttemberg.”—So the country “became a pure 
home of the unadulterated gospel, in opposition to all 
papist outrages and idolatry and all heretical sects and 
errors.” All had to become Protestants; those who 
wished to keep the old faith were obliged to leave the 
country. Altars and pictures were destroyed, and the 
Church property — this was never forgotten — was 
confiscated. 1 

Under Duke Ulrich of Wiirttemberg the Poor 
Clares of Pfullingen were for eleven years ‘ ‘tormented 
to accept the gospel,” and were forced to honor the 
duke as their legitimate master in spiritual matters as 
well as temporal. During this time they were deprived 
of Mass and the Sacraments, and eleven sisters died 
without the consolations of religion. As there was not 
a single apostasy, in spite of the outrages and priva¬ 
tions, the nuns were finally dispersed. 2 

The Dukedom of Brunswick was “converted” to 
the gospel by the Elector, John Frederick of Saxony, 
who conquered it. This “godly prince” declared 
everything Catholic to be worse than devilment, he 
would have “none of them (Catholics) in the country, 
and felt obliged to deal harshly with them because he 
was a lover of Christ. ’ ’ 3 

A report of the year 1545 on the condition of the 
Dukedom of Brunswick after the “reformation” com¬ 
plains,—“At present all are divided and at variance in 
the country. Those who wish to keep to the old faith 
are abused and driven away. The poor nuns in the 

1 Janssen, Bd. 4, p. 46. 

2 Janssen, Bd. 4, p. 52. 

3 Janssen, Bd. 3, p. 504. 


334 


APOSTASY AND CONVERSION. 


monasteries are most cruelly treated; they are tor¬ 
mented in order to make them apostatize, and their 
revenues are taken away from them. There is neither 
law, nor order anywhere. The churches are empty, 
but the places of amusement are filled; inferiors 
imitate the higher classes, and there is no end to 
drinking and debauchery. ’ ’ 1 

InEichsfeld a number of the nobility “reformed” 
with “lance and gun.” * The nobles attempted, as we 
read in an archiepiscopal writ of complaint, “to assume 
(Church) government, to install strange preachers 
according to their various notions, to turn away the 
poor vassals and peasantry from the Catholic religion, 
known to them from their ancestors; and to this end, 
they made use of all sorts of vexatious expedients, 
falsely printed books, and had recourse to coercion 
and even violence. The Church property, too, was 
seized. ’ ’ 2 

The confiscation of Church property was generally 
the point on which everything turned; all else served 
merely as coloring. Melanchthon writes: “The im¬ 
perial cities do not care at all about religion; it means 
to them only the rule of, or freedom from, the 
bishops.” “The princes do not interest themselves 
in these things at all, and value one as much as the 
other.” They use “the gospel as a cloak, in order to 
rob churches, for gambling, wooing, and other pleas¬ 
ures. ” “The princes injure the Churches by giving 
great scandal, and take their goods and chattels.” 
They set the Churches one against the other to further 
their own interests and passions. 3 

1 Janssen, Bd. 3, p. 506. 

2 Janssen, Bd. 3, p. 410. 

3 Janssen, Bd. 3, p. 717. 


GERMANY AND THE NEW DOCTRINES. 335 

And this was how Germany was converted to the 
new religion. It took a long time, however, to blot 
out Catholicity from the memory of the people made 
Protestant by force and cunning. ‘ ‘The wickedness 
of Popery” had been preached for forty years when 
Fabricius lamented that Catholicity “in spite of the 
bright light of the gospels” was still ‘‘deeply rooted.” 
“The people, ’ ’ said he, ‘ ‘ were still so deeply immersed 
in the old hypocrisy that one sermon would make them 
all papists again. ’ ’ 1 

Among the imperial states of the Augsburg Con¬ 
fession, the tenet ‘‘the religion of the state must be 
that of its ruler” had, in reality, been accepted long 
before they entered into the treaty of peace with the 
Catholic states: hence, the importance of the treaty for 
them lay in the fact that the tenet would receive im¬ 
perial support. The smallest state in the empire could 
henceforth appeal to the Augsburg decree, in accord¬ 
ance with the ‘‘Ruling of the Faith of Subjects.” 
This was the ‘‘ground and reason” given for the strict 
observance and execution of all those things which the 
Strasburg reformer Capito, ten years before in a letter 
to Count Palatine Rupert, had represented as the right 
and duty of secular authorities. Every prince, said 
Capito, should be head of the Church in his province, 
appointed by Christ in His place. All should submit 
to his ‘‘power of the sword.” The religious doctrine 
and form of divine service, the priests and ministers, 
and their whole administration should be subject to 
him. ‘‘The children belong not so much to their 
parents as to the State. ’ ’ Every prince should forcibly 
extirpate the Catholic religion from his province. 2 

1 Janssen, Bd. 4, p. 7. 

2 Janssen, Bd. 4, pp. 3—4. 


336 apostasy and conversion. 

This was, of course, more easily accomplished with 
children than with adults; because the adults remem¬ 
bered from their youth that saints were never wor¬ 
shipped, nor idolatry practised in the Catholic Church. 
But by means of the schools, which were turned over 
to the government authority at discretion, anything, 
however absurd, might be hoped for from the coming 
generation. 

Religious education everywhere inspired the young 
Protestant generation with profound abhorrence for 
the “godless papists”; to this Luther gave the im¬ 
pulse. He taught that the whole Church was, until 
the advent of his gospel, given over to the power of 
the devil, and a den of assassins established in place 
of a Church; that the devil instead of Christ, whom 
he had dethroned, had for centuries boldly ruled the 
whole kingdom of Christianity; that the Pope had set 
himself up as the devil’s representative; that bishops 
were apostles of the devil, and monks the devil’s 
creatures; that the Mass was the greatest outrage of 
all — the tail of the dragon — and purgatory the devil’s 
invention. In his large catechism he heaps up the 
bitterest abuse against all that displeased him in the 
Catholic Church. “No one in popedom,” he said, 
“has recognized Christ as Lord and the Holy Ghost 
as the one who sanctified him. ” . . . “Heretofore we 
have belonged entirely to the devil, as we have known 
nothing of Christ or God. ”... The Papal chair at 
Rome “was the head and principal protector of all 
thieves, which by robbery gathered to itself and kept 
until this day the goods of the world. ’ ’ 

In absolute contrast to Catholic doctrine the Prot¬ 
estant children were taught in the catechism that the 


GERMANY AND THE NEW DOCTRINES. 337 

Catholic practised idolatry. I refer you to the Meck- 
lenburg.catechism for an example of what I say: “The 
Papists teach that not God alone but dead men also 
should be adored.” To the question: “What is the 
antichrist?” the children must answer: “The anti¬ 
christ is the whole of popedom established by the 
devil, wherein the teachings of Christ are perverted, 
dead saints worshipped, matrimony and meat forbid¬ 
den ; and those who will not be converted will descend 
into hell with all their companions.” 

“It should early be enjoined upon the Christian 
youth,” writes a preacher, “that popery is nothing but 
idolatry, worse than that of the heathens and Turks. 
The silly papists, as Tuther says in his catechism, 
have made an idol of God, and set themselves up as 
gods; they must adore their idol at Rome, the living 
Antichrist, adore and receive as divine all commands 
from him. Who will not be horrified to hear that they 
think almost nothing of the merits of Christ, but rather 
hate and deride Him, and wish to gain Heaven by 
their own unaided efforts ? It is the greatest idolatry 
and insult to God, aqd wickedness heaped upon wick¬ 
edness, that was ever known since the beginning of 
the world. ’ ’ 

The preacher Andrew Fabricius gave out to the 
people as some of the principal articles of Catholic 
faith: “The Pope is half god, half man; he has power 
to command the angels and devils to do or omit what¬ 
ever he wishes; his priests must be ignorant, know no 
catechism, believe in neither God nor devil, nor in the 
resurrection of the dead, nor in Heaven, nor hell.” 1 
Such was the teaching that procured for Protestantism 
entrance and rule in the heads and hearts of the people. 

1 Janssen, Bd. 4, pp. 5—7. 

22 


338 


APOSTASY AND CONVERSION. 


And wliat did Catholics say to such proceedings? 
When they were among the audience they generally 
felt forced to keep silence, even though they remem¬ 
bered earlier and very different times. Occasionally 
voices were raised in protest. Doctor Bartholomeus 
Kleindienst wrote in the year 1560: 

“The poor people have been persuaded to believe 
that we Catholics, or, as they call us, Papists, adore 
the saints as God, no longer believe in Christ, even 
hold the pope to be our God; that we wish to gain 
Heaven by our own works without the help of God’s 
Scripture; have no proper Bible, and would not be 
permitted to read it if we had; that we depend more 
upon holy water than upon the Blood of Christ; and 
innumerable other horrible, blasphemous, unheard-of 
tales which have been invented against us. The in¬ 
telligent know that this is the greatest art of the sects, 
that they have made Romanism seem almost a crime 
to the ordinary but, in the main, well-intentioned man. 
It is, indeed, deplorable that these poor people have 
been so long led about by the nose and so wretchedly 
deceived.” “It is, in my opinion, most pleasing to 
God and salutary to men to regard these poor misled 
and misguided people with Christian pity, to pray 
devoutly for them, and to do and to wish them good. ’ ’ 1 

In the year 1578 it was said in a Christian writ of 
complaint: “If a humane and Christian feeling should 
again — as is to be hoped — gain ground among the 
protesting powers, they will blush for shame over the 
excessive and tyrannical deeds committed so indis¬ 
criminately and for so many years — often ten, twenty 
or more — against the poor, defenseless nuns, even the 


Janssen, Bd. 4, p. 7. 


GERMANY AND THE NEW DOCTRINES. 339 

most aged and infirm, in order to turn them from the 
faith, against their consciences and in spite of all their 
appeals to mercy. O, what a contradiction when they 
(those in power) proclaim their gospel to be Christian 
freedom, and declare that they allow no forcing of 
conscience, whereas there is no tyranny comparable to 
that exercised by those who are not afraid of torturing 
the conscience incessantly for years; of refusing to 
souls the consolation of the Holy Sacraments; of 
depriving them of the spiritual aid of an ordained 
priest, of all means of prayer, and spiritual reading- 
books; and, in spite of earnest entreaties, even refus¬ 
ing extreme unction to the dying. The souls of 
thousands of nuns who never did any one any injury, 
and whose only desire was to be allowed to live and 
die in their faith even after everything had been taken 
from them, cry for justice before God’s judgment-seat 
for the many crimes committed against them in the 
German cities and states. 

“If Christ did not establish a true Church, what 
good can result from such persecutions? The con¬ 
fiscated property of the Church and the convents is 
parcelled out; but those benefited by it say truly it 
has a curse upon it. Have the poor gained by it — 
has their poverty been alleviated? On the contrary, 
are they not more oppressed than they were before the 
division in religion, during the Christian times of the 
one faith ? Ask this question in any of the German 
provinces, and the answer will be soon forthcoming; 
moreover, you can see for yourself in the villages 
and cities.’’ 


346 APOSTASY AND CONVERSION. 

More than three centuries have passed since half 
of Germany was converted to the new teachings in the 
manner just described. The progress of Protestantism 
ceased with the cessation of force. Now and then 
some few go over to the new religion, and isolated 
individuals turn to it; but, so far as I have been able 
to judge, during the course of more than thirty years, 
the motive for such conversions from Catholicism to 
Protestantism has not been religious conviction. A 
Protestant newspaper of pronounced zeal acknow¬ 
ledges: “Although many are converts from inward 
conviction, yet this cannot be said of the greater 
number. It is especially to be feared in many con¬ 
versions to Protestantism that they take place from 
love of unbelief and false freedom. ’ ’ 1 

In converts to Catholicism I have found the oppos¬ 
ite to be true. I have known many cases in which 
great sacrifices were demanded. This is particularly 
true of Protestant ministers, who, in following their 
Consciences and their convictions, are forced to bring 
poverty upon their wives and children, and to rely 
upon the charity of others for their maintenance. 

An interesting article in the new edition of Wetzer 
and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon (Freiburg, Herder, 1884) 
gives detailed information about the conversions of 
the century. For Germany we find: from reigning 
houses seventeen, among them Queen Mary of Bava¬ 
ria, 'a Prussian princess, Prince Henry of Prussia, 
Princess Julia of Prussia, Prince Paul of Wiirttemberg, 
Prince Adolf Frederic, and later Prince Paul of Meck¬ 
lenburg ; from the princely houses nine, among them 

1 “Neues Zeitblatt” for the affairs of the Lutheran 
Church. Hanover, Meyer, July 26, 1883, p. 234. 


CONVERSIONS. 


341 


Prince Karl of Isenburg; fifty-four from noble families, 
notably Count Leopold of Stolberg; sixty-four from 
baronial families, among them Baron v. d. Kettenburg 
and Henry von Gagern; great numbers of the rest of 
the nobility, for example, Counsellor of the embassy 
von Kehler; in learned and artistic circles we find 
the names of Hurter, Gfrorer, Klopp, Schlosser, 
Moller, Jarcke, Phillips, Volk, Daumer, Bickell, 
Martens, hammer, Beckedorf, Hager, Evers, Von 
Rumohr, Von Haller, Von Schiitz, Overbeck, William 
and Rudolf Von Schadow, Veit, Schnorr, Von Karols- 
feld, Muller, Achenbach, Hiibsch, Emily Lindner, 
Louisa Hensel, etc. 

The converts are even more numerous in England. 
The famous convert Oakeley writes in the “Times”: 
“The converts come to us in ever increasing numbers. 
No one knows what a number of Protestants are en¬ 
tering the Church.” From time to time the news¬ 
papers report some remarkable conversions, but the 
greater number remain unknown, or are known only 
to God and the Church. Among others, fifty-two of 
the lords, three hundred and thirty-three Anglican 
theologians and ministers, two hundred and sixty-six 
Doctors of the University of Oxford, and one hundred 
and twenty-eight of the University of Cambridge, have 
become converts. 

In Denmark, where till the year 1848 conversion 
was punished by exile and dispossession, the backward 
current to the old Church has also set in. For ex¬ 
ample, the parish of Aarhus, founded in 1872, num¬ 
bers several hundred members almost exclusively 
converts. It is the same in Sweden, Norway, and the 
United States. In short, the number of “converts” 


342 


APOSTASY AND CONVERSION. 


has increased, since the intolerance of Protestantism 
has declined. 

And what will be the end of this reversion from 
apostasy? The disintegration of Protestantism will 
advance more and more rapidly, people will see the 
final consequence of that work which Tuther, without 
seeing its range, began in the sixteenth century. The 
great mass of Protestants will renounce Christianity 
and all religion, and embrace a modern heathenism ; 
but many will turn back to the old, much slandered, 
and calumniated Catholic Church —■ the saving ark, 
always open to offer shelter to those struggling in the 
angry waves of modern unbelief. For the Catholic 
Church, though long declared dead, still lives in 
youthful vigor at the beginning of the twentieth cen¬ 
tury; and such she will still endure until her founder 
the Son of God appears again to judge the living and 
the dead. 



12. Practical Suggestions. 

(Edgar’s Letter.) 

Reverend Father, your last letter has brought me to 
a final decision. I will return to the Catholic Church. 

Of course I foresee the difficulties that will arise 
from this step ; my relatives will be offended, I shall 
be looked upon as a foolish visionary, and my future 
career will suffer. But what difference does all this 
make ? It is my duty as a man of honor and a Chris¬ 
tian, and for the sake of truth, to acknowledge frankly 
and openly what I believe in my heart. Christ, more¬ 
over, has said : “He that shall be ashamed of me and 
my words of him the Son of Man shall be ashamed, 
when He shall come in His majesty. ’’ 1 And as to the 
bad treatment that awaits me, I will remember the 
word of the Saviour: “The servant is not greater than 
his master. If they have persecuted me, they will 
also persecute you. ’ ’ 2 

Therefore, I am firmly resolved to become a 
Catholic. 

To-day I will only ask you for some practical hints 
as to the carrying out of this design : 

1. To whom had I better apply to be received into 
the Church ? 

2. How shall I prepare for my first confession ? 

3. What course do you advise me to adopt after 
this change of religion ? 

1 Luke IX, 26. 

2 John XV, 20 , 


( 343 ) 


344 


practical suggestions. 


(Father H.’s Answer.) 

You know, dear friend, what sincere joy your 
letter gave me. I give my blessing to your intention. 

Now, as regards your questions : 

1. If possible, withdraw for a time to a religious 
house for a Retreat before your abjuration. There 
give up at least eight days to the concerns of your soul. 

As to the choice of a religious house I advise you 
as follows: Among those that are convenient choose 
the one most attractive to you. Perhaps I can give 
you a letter of introduction. 

2. Your second question, about confession, I must 
answer more at length. 

For the worthy reception of the Sacrament of 
Penance five things are necessary on the part of the 
penitent: examination of conscience, sorrow for sin, 
resolution of amendment, accusation (that is, confes¬ 
sion in the more restricted sense), and the performance 
of the penance imposed by the priest. 

For the resolution of amendment, a resolve to avoid 
all mortal sins is sufficient, as for contrition it is enough 
to repent of all the mortal sins committed since bap¬ 
tism, or since the last confession. In like manner, the 
examination of conscience and confession need extend 
only to the mortal sins. If one should have no mortal 
sins to confess, he should accuse himself of some venial 
sins, so that the priest may give him absolution. 

You will ask, what is a mortal sin and what is a 
venial sin ? 

A grievous or mortal sin is one that robs the soul 
of its life, sanctifying grace. A lesser or venial sin is 
one that, while it does not take away the life of the 
soul or make it an enemy of God, provokes in some 


MORTAR SIN DKFINKD. 


345 


degree His displeasure. Mortal sin, if not remitted 
before death, is punished with everlasting damnation; 
venial sin, if not atoned for before death, is expiated 
in purgatory. 

And how can one distinguish mortal sins from 
venial ? 

A sin to be mortal must fulfil the following condi¬ 
tions: first, there must be grievous matter; secondly, 
the intellect must recognize that the action or desire 
in question would be a grave sin; and thirdly, not¬ 
withstanding all this, the will must fully consent to 
the sin. If any of these three conditions is wanting, 
the sin is only venial and need not be confessed. 

You will ask again: When is a thing a grievous 
matter? This cannot be mathematically determined. 
But as you wish an explanation, let us take robbery, 
for example. Theologians say it is a grievous matter 
if the value of the thing stolen would suffice for a 
day’s maintenance to the injured person. But this is 
only external. The real decision must rest on the 
attitude of the soul toward the sin; whether the soul 
is conscious that by such an act it separates itself from 
God, or only lessens His friendship. Therefore, the 
grievousness of the matter is not in itself the standard, 
but the importance which the sinner gives the act. 
Common sense must speak here. No sensible person 
would affirm it to be a mortal sin if I plucked and ate 
an ear of corn to satisfy my hunger ; but, on the other 
had, no sensible person would say that it was only a 
venial sin to steal two thousand dollars. There is a 
boundary line between mortal sin and venial sin; but 
where to draw it must in many cases be left to the 
Omniscient. 

It only remains .for me to observe that in some 


346 PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS. 

kinds of sin the smallest transgression that is wholly 
voluntary (although it be committed only in thought) 
is a mortal sin. This is particularly true of sins 
against the sixth commandment. 

I repeat, then, that mortal sin does not depend so 
much on the gravity of the matter per se, as on its 
gravity in the eyes of the sinner himself. Hence, if 
in examining my conscience I remember something 
I did when a child — something which was in itself, 
perhaps, a grievous sin, it would not be so for me, and 
I would not have to confess it, if at the time I com¬ 
mitted it, I did not recognize it as such. 

We have now removed the second condition for 
mortal sin, the condition that the thing must be 
recognized as a grievous sin. 

The third requisite is the full consent of the will. 
This condition applies particularly to sins of thought 
against the sixth commandment. It may be that a 
sinful image intrudes on the imagination. If one tries 
to resist it there is no sin : it is only a temptation the 
overcoming of which makes us pleasing in the sight 
of God. If a person hesitates a little before resisting 
it, without, however, fully consenting to it, he com¬ 
mits a venial sin. But if, in spite of the exhortations 
of conscience, he gives his full consent, he commits a 
mortal sin, which must be confessed. 

Now I believe I have explained in a few words 
what a mortal sin is. The examination of conscience 
must take in all the mortal sins committed since bap : ^ 
tism and not yet confessed; and confession must in¬ 
clude all the mortal sins which can be recalled after 
a conscientious examination. These should be con¬ 
fessed by number and kind, if possible. If a sin is 


HOW TO EXAMINE ONE’S CONSCIENCE. 347 

omitted by chance, it will, nevertheless, be forgiven, 
for the priest has the intention of absolving all that 
requires absolution. If, however, the sin omitted be 
remembered later, it must be told in the next confes¬ 
sion ; but in the meantime one may receive Holy 
Communion without fear. It is not good to examine 
one’s conscience again from absurd scrupulosity, after 
one has done it in an orderly manner and made his 
confession. It does more harm than good. 

The examination will naturally differ, as it extends 
over a short time, or over the whole life. A quarter 
or half hour of preparation is sufficient for confession 
as devout Christians make it every eight or fourteen 
days. And even of this time the greater part should 
be spent in exciting contrition and making the resolu¬ 
tion of amendment, and only a small portion spent on 
the particular examination. If, on the other hand, 
there is question, as in your case, of making a general 
confession of the whole life, the preparation must, of 
course, be longer and more thorough. It would be 
well to go through the different periods of your life 
according to the Ten Commandments, and ask your¬ 
self in what you have acted against the voice of your 
conscience; for then only did you commit sin, and not 
when you did something, forbidden in itself, perhaps, 
but which you did not recognize as forbidden and sin¬ 
ful when you did it. To awaken contrition meditate 
on the goodness of God against which you have sinned, 
on His benefits which you have repaid with ingrati¬ 
tude, on the scandal you have given to others, on the 
eternal happiness which you have forfeited by sin, 
and, if you wish, on the punishment which you have 
incurred by sinning. 


348 


practical suggestions. 


If it is hard for you to tell this or that, ask the 
priest to question you. Tell him you have something 
which you do not know how to confess. He will help 
you by skillful questioning. Remember that the self- 
humiliation which lies in the acknowledgment of 
shameful sins, was without doubt intended by Christ 
w T hen he instituted the Sacrament of Penance. It does 
not hurt as much to acknowledge our sins in private 
to God, who already knows them; but it costs a good 
deal to disclose them, humbly kneeling, to a man, and 
to receive counsel from him. On the other hand, it 
should be an encouraging and tranquillizing thought 
that this man holds God’s place, and that by the seal 
of confession he is sworn to the strictest and most 
solemn secrecy, a secrecy from which only God or the 
penitent himself, but no human power, not even the 
Pope, can dispense him. 

As to the formula to be used in confession, you will 
find it in any Catholic prayer-book. The rest requires 
no definite formula. 

3. So much for confession. You ask me, finally, 
for some instruction about your life after your change 
in religion. I counsel you as follows: 

First, follow closely the principles of Catholic faith, 
and place yourself under the guidance of an exper¬ 
ienced confessor. I advise you in this manner that you 
may wander neither to the right through misguided 
zeal, nor to the left through indifference. Attend 
Mass daily, and, if you can, approach the Holy Sacra¬ 
ments frequently, once a month at least. Observe 
sincere charity toward all, especially toward your 
Protestant relatives, but, of course, without in the 
least sacrificing your convictions. Secondly, try day 


PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS. 


349 


by day to acquaint yourself more thoroughly with 
Catholic doctrines. For this end, I send you a list of 
books. As a beginning I advise you to read De- 
harbe’s Catechism attentively, and to seek elucidation 
on points that seem dark, in Deharbe’s Explanation 
of the Earge Catechism. 

Thirdly, never provoke a religious discussion with 
those of a different belief. If you are forced into it, 
make suitable replies and give them Catholic books to 
read. If a difficulty is brought up which you cannot 
explain, go to your confessor for advice, or to anyone 
else whom you can trust. 

Of course, I understand how you long to have your 
relatives also partake of the happiness which you have 
found and will always find in Catholicism. Be sure 
that you will not attain this object by argument, but 
rather by the example of a truly cheerful, pious, char¬ 
itable Christian life, by inducing them to read good 
books, and by prayer. 

Enough for to-day. May God give His blessing to 
the fulfilment of your desire! I await your next letter 
in great suspense. 



13. The End. 


(Edgar’s Tetter.) 

Reverend and dear Father, in the joy of my heart 
I must write you just a few lines to-day to communi¬ 
cate to you my happiness. 

I have taken the step; I have publicly and sol¬ 
emnly made my profession of faith, and I am now a 
member of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 
Church founded by Christ Himself. 

But how can I describe my happiness! 

You remember at our first meeting how strangely 
and coldly I opposed Christianity. Outwardly I was 
a Protestant, but I was indifferent to the particular 
doctrines of my own creed; at heart I was more an 
atheist or sceptic than a Christian. I imagined that 
Christianity could not stand before modern science. 

You convinced me to the contrary. I became a 
Christian. 

Then this question confronted me: which of the 
different confessions is real Christianity ? Previously 
this question was naturally of no moment to me, but 
of course I gave the preference to Protestantism, 
because I was practically and theoretically less incon¬ 
venienced by it. On the other hand I held Catholicity 
to be intellectual tyranny, its members being forced to 
accept blindly a number of doctrinal superstitions. 

Then I asked myself: Where is genuine, unadul¬ 
terated Christianity? Is it in the Catholic Church, in 
one of the Protestant confessions, or where ? 

(350) 


A SUMMARY. 


351 


A decision could not, of course, present much diffi¬ 
culty. When the customary slanders against the 
Catholic Church had, on closer examination, proved 
absolutely false; when it became clear to me that the 
bishops form that apostolic teaching body which, by 
the commission of Christ, is to teach and guide all 
nations until the end of time, I saw it was my duty to 
allow myself to be taught by this body as to the sub¬ 
stance of Christianity, and to submit humbly to its 
doctrine and regulations. 

Then I returned to my Protestant home. I wrote 
to you of the horror my communication caused. All 
kinds of arguments were put forward to dissuade me 
from entering into the Church. But such arguments 
as they were! That the thing would make a great 
sensation, that I alone of all the family would be a 
Catholic, that my career would be ruined. Suffice it 
to say that they fought Catholicity with weapons 
which had long before lost their edge. The objection 
was also brought forward that it is wrong and dishon¬ 
orable to change one’s religion. They did not consider 
that they thus condemned the Divine Saviour who 
came to make Jews and heathens Christian by a change 
of religion; they did not reflect that Protestantism 
itself owes its origin to a change in the religion of our 
forefathers. And if they did not grant that the change 
from Catholicity to Protestantism was a change of 
religion, still less could they object to the step which 
I proposed to take, as such. Not once among all the 
objections brought forward did I hear the plain asser¬ 
tion that the Protestant Church was in possession of 
full, genuine Christianity, and that a deviation from 
its tenets would be deviation from pure and un¬ 
mutilated Christianity. 


352 


A SUMMARY. 


Although they evinced so little confidence in the 
truth of special doctrines, they used every effort to 
prevent my becoming a Catholic. I was brought into 
contact with Protestant ministers. But their' argu¬ 
ments were purely negative: that Catholicity is spirit¬ 
ual slavery (in that case the word of Jesus Christ, 

‘ ‘Who hears you, hears me, ’ ’ is also spiritual slavery); 
that Protestantism allows private interpretation (but 
so also does heathenism); that the Catholic countries 
are stagnant (your statistics on suicide showed me 
what to think about that); that there are many bad 
priests and bishops (as if there was not a Judas among 
the twelve Apostles!). I will not mention other gross 
calumnies, such as the saints being adored, the sacri¬ 
fice of the Mass, and the veneration of relics being 
idolatry, etc. 

It was, therefore, useless to dispute longer, or to 
postpone the step I had decided to take. My Protes¬ 
tant friends had had time enough to prove their ob¬ 
jections. 

Acting on your advice I went to X. — How happy 
it made me to find there the stillness and solitude of a 
well-conducted religious house! How the beautiful 
service with its wonderful music impressed me! Here, 
thought I, is peace and truth; here I find that peace 
which Christ promised His disciples, and which neither 
the world nor Protestantism has to give. 

But I will be brief. 

Father N. undertook to prepare me. He found 
that I had already been sufficiently instructed in Cath¬ 
olic doctrine, so we put aside instruction, and devoted 
ourselves to the holy exercises of meditation and 
prayer. 


the end. 


353 


An entirely new light came to my soul. Clearer 
than ever before I saw the road to Heaven which 
I must follow. 

Yesterday afternoon, at the close of the retreat, 
I made a general confession of all my past life; it was 
much easier than I had anticipated. The rest of the 
evening I spent in meditation on the inconceivable 
goodness and mercy of God, who had led me back 
from the terrible sin of unbelief to faith in His divine 
Son. And now this Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
was waiting to receive me into the Church founded by 
Him, and to give Himself to me as food, in Holy 
Communion. 

This morning I made the profession of faith. The 
battle was ended, the victory gained. As the reward 
of victory I received our divine Tord Himself from the 
hand of the priest. 

Misericordias Domini in aeternum cantabo. 

I will praise forever the mercies of God the L,ord. 


23 


REMARKS. 


1. The names of the Confessions are on the right 
side of the table. On the left, on the other side of the 
scale of millimeters, are lines, or plain black surfaces, 
giving the graphic representation of each special Con¬ 
fession. 

2. The duration of the Confessions is expressed 
by the length of the line from left to right. The ver¬ 
tical lines intersecting the table denote the centuries 
during which the Confession existed. 

3. The membership of the Confession is shown 
by the breadth of the corresponding line. Every space 
of 1 mm. (from the top to the bottom) corresponds to 
a membership of ten millions. The scale of milli¬ 
meters inserted between the name of the Confession 
and the corresponding lines enables one to form a 
general estimate of the membership. 

4. This membership and its fluctuations are, of 
course, only approximately expressed. As regards the 
Catholic Church, the two fixed points taken are the 
beginning (when only the Apostles represented the 
Church), and the present time, when it numbers about 
240 millions. The fluctuations of the intervening 
time, such as the separation and return of other Con¬ 
fessions, are not of special moment in this question, 
and could not be even approximately presented in a 
graphic manner. This holds good, moreover, of the 
ancient sects. In like manner, the losses of Eutheran- 

( 354 ) 


REMARKS. 355 

ism by the Prussian Union of 1817, and the con¬ 
sequences of the annexations of 1866, must be neglected 
as the numbers are not easily controlled. Occasionally 
the real membership is so inconsiderable—for instance, 
in the case of the Old Catholics — that the merest line 
of a hair’s breadth would suffice to represent it. 

5. The two breaks in the line corresponding to 
the Greek-Russian schism, denote the reunion with 
the Catholic Church after (1) the Council of Uyons, 
1274; and (2) the Council of Florence, when the 
Orientals and Russians recognized the Pope as the 
Head of the whole Church. The reunions were, 
however, of short duration. 













* 





















































V • 













✓ 
























V ■ 






■ 













































« 
































% 














i 
































































































































. 


























0 100 200 


A Graphic Representation of some of the Leading Confessions. 

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100Q 1100 1200 130G 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 




-5— 
h-10— 
[—B 

h—10— 

— fi 



-5 

-10-j 

-5 
-10— 
-5 
— 10 — 

— ft 
10— 

— 5 
10 - 
5 

1 - 10 - 

5 

- 10 — 

— 5 


I—tO- 
ft 

-10- 
-5 
-10- 
— ft 
- 10 - 
-5 


- 10 - 
-5 
- 10 - 
-5 


Catholicism. 

Gnostics. 

Montanists. 

Novatians. 

Manicheans. 

Donatists. 

Arians. 

Macedonians. .. 

Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. 
Nestorians. 

Monophysites. 

Monothelites. 

Greek-Russian Schism. 

Albigenses. 

Waldenses. 

Hussites and Bohemian Brothers. 
Lutherans. 

Zwinglians. 

Anglicans. 

Calvinists. 

Presbyterians. 

Baptists. 

Jansenists. 

Methodists. 

Evangelical. 

Irvingites. 

German Catholics. 

Old Catholics. 













































































• • 

■ « . 








. . 






- 

* 

. 

*. 

. - 

' 




















. * 

* 




’ 




t 


✓ 






. 





























































* 















































































































* 


















































































» 



































. 











































% 




















































































OCT 20 1903 


i 


4T 

> 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 




























































